Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA8E9FB2FB;
	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:31:47 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 98173-08; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:31:35 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from smtp.janestcapital.com (www.janestcapital.com [66.155.124.107])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663E89FB2A3;
	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:31:37 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [192.168.250.117] [209.213.205.130] by janestcapital.com with
	ESMTP (SMTPD-9.10) id A92702A0; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:31:35 -0500
Message-ID: <45AFD927.9050605@janestcapital.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:31:35 -0500
From: Brian Hurt <bhurt@janestcapital.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org,  pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Postgres and really huge tables
References: <4939.1164740825@sss.pgh.pa.us>	
	<200611282344.kASNijt09203@momjian.us>	
	<456CE066.50803@cheapcomplexdevices.com>	
	<456D8A65.3080400@janestcapital.com>
	<1164812624.9690.500.camel@archimedes>
	<456DA476.4000606@janestcapital.com>
	<456DB8C9.7020206@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
In-Reply-To: <456DB8C9.7020206@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200701/54
X-Sequence-Number: 10536

Is there any experience with Postgresql and really huge tables?  I'm 
talking about terabytes (plural) here in a single table.  Obviously the 
table will be partitioned, and probably spread among several different 
file systems.  Any other tricks I should know about?

We have a problem of that form here.  When I asked why postgres wasn't 
being used, the opinion that postgres would "just <explicitive> die" was 
given.  Personally, I'd bet money postgres could handle the problem (and 
better than the ad-hoc solution we're currently using).  But I'd like a 
couple of replies of the form "yeah, we do that here- no problem" to 
wave around.

Brian