DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=NfgBYQJBq5zCPGe5ISO/LmEadEhNhxB8Gw6XtDha0HYK8Mr3AFp72VxfYuYCTAYBzqoDE4FqBvWHNA+zKSEispSWb0QdXHSjEaIJRUqm5xuk65WbG3d3LmW63x3sOv4b0tZx7hA1zkzbbAq8oILhFt54BQwugfYP9X/bBTGp2qA=
Message-ID: <474B1B8C.1030505@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:16:28 -0500
From: Stephen Cook <sclists@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (Windows/20070809)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Pablo Alcaraz <pabloa@laotraesquina.copgsql-performance"
	<pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
References: <4544e0330711260904g45d893a8ub1731e245aa8fc84@mail.gmail.com>
	<474B1407.3090607@laotraesquina.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <474B1407.3090607@laotraesquina.com.ar>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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
>