From: Peter Koczan <pjkoczan@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:18:51 -0600
Message-ID: <4544e0330711271218h56ce4cc3p280a9fefff24583d@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <474B1B8C.1030505@gmail.com>
References: <4544e0330711260904g45d893a8ub1731e245aa8fc84@mail.gmail.com>
<474B1407.3090607@laotraesquina.com.ar>
<474B1B8C.1030505@gmail.com>
Thanks all. This is just what I needed.
On Nov 26, 2007 1:16 PM, Stephen Cook <sclists@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think either would work; both PostgreSQL and MS SQL Server have
> success stories out there running VLDBs. It really depends on what you
> know and what you have. If you have a lot of experience with Postgres
> running on Linux, and not much with SQL Server on Windows, of course the
> former would be a better choice for you. You stand a much better chance
> working with tools you know.
>
>
>
> Pablo Alcaraz wrote:
> > I had a client that tried to use Ms Sql Server to run a 500Gb+ database.
> > The database simply colapsed. They switched to Teradata and it is
> > running good. This database has now 1.5Tb+.
> >
> > Currently I have clients using postgresql huge databases and they are
> > happy. In one client's database the biggest table has 237Gb+ (only 1
> > table!) and postgresql run the database without problem using
> > partitioning, triggers and rules (using postgresql 8.2.5).
> >
> > Pablo
> >
> > Peter Koczan wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I have a user who is looking to store 500+ GB of data in a database
> >> (and when all the indexes and metadata are factored in, it's going to
> >> be more like 3-4 TB). He is wondering how well PostgreSQL scales with
> >> TB-sized databases and what can be done to help optimize them (mostly
> >> hardware and config parameters, maybe a little advocacy). I can't
> >> speak on that since I don't have any DBs approaching that size.
> >>
> >> The other part of this puzzle is that he's torn between MS SQL Server
> >> (running on Windows and unsupported by us) and PostgreSQL (running on
> >> Linux...which we would fully support). If any of you have ideas of how
> >> well PostgreSQL compares to SQL Server, especially in TB-sized
> >> databases, that would be much appreciated.
> >>
> >> We're running PG 8.2.5, by the way.
> >>
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> >>
> >> http://archives.postgresql.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> >
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: pjkoczan@gmail.com
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
In-Reply-To: <4544e0330711271218h56ce4cc3p280a9fefff24583d@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox