Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 569652E003B for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:44:21 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11685-06 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:44:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from linus.numail.org (mail.numail.org [216.130.152.7]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96FD22E003C for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:44:16 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 16533 invoked by uid 0); 26 Nov 2007 18:44:14 -0000 Received: from 72.15.64.64 by linus.numail.org (envelope-from , uid 101) with qmail-scanner-1.23 (fsecure: 4.50/2111/fprot(2004-10-21)/avp(2004-10-21). Clear:RC:1(72.15.64.64):. Processed in 0.085359 secs); 26 Nov 2007 18:44:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?24.25.1.100?) (72.15.64.64) by mail.numail.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Nov 2007 18:44:14 -0000 Message-ID: <474B1407.3090607@laotraesquina.com.ar> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:44:23 -0500 From: Pablo Alcaraz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance 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 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200711/302 X-Sequence-Number: 27717 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 > >