Message-ID: <474B00FB.6070309@commandprompt.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:23:07 -0800
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (Windows/20070809)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Koczan <pjkoczan@gmail.com>
CC: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
References: <4544e0330711260904g45d893a8ub1731e245aa8fc84@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4544e0330711260904g45d893a8ub1731e245aa8fc84@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.

Well I can't speak to MS SQL-Server because all of our clients run 
PostgreSQL ;).. I can tell you we have many that are in the 500GB - 
1.5TB range.

All perform admirably as long as you have the hardware behind it and are 
doing correct table structuring (such as table partitioning).

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


> 
> Peter
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> 
>                http://archives.postgresql.org
>