Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4E89FB2FA
	for <pgsql-advocacy-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:43:03 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 45087-06 for
	<pgsql-advocacy-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:43:00 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from svr4.postgresql.org (svr4.postgresql.org [66.98.251.159])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A59C9FB2AB
	for <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:43:00 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.3
Received: from smtp2.hushmail.com (smtp2.hushmail.com [65.39.178.134])
	by svr4.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA025AFA1F
	for <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:42:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from smtp2.hushmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by smtp2.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B0F2117047
	for <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:42:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <45AFE9D0.6060205@1006.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:42:40 +0100
From: Chris Mair <chris@1006.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian Hurt <bhurt@janestcapital.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 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>
	<45AFD927.9050605@janestcapital.com>
In-Reply-To: <45AFD927.9050605@janestcapital.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=BAYES_50
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200701/56
X-Sequence-Number: 10538


> 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.

I've done a project using 8.1 on solaris that had a table that was 
closed to 2TB. The funny thing is that it just worked fine even without 
partitioning.

But, then again: the size of a single record was huge too: ~ 50K.
So there were not insanly many records: "just" something
in the order of 10ths of millions.

The queries just were done on some int fields, so the index of the
whole thing fit into RAM.

A lot of data, but not a lot of records... I don't know if that's
valid. I guess the people at Greenplum and/or Sun have more exciting
stories ;)


Bye, Chris.