From: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
To: Pablo Alcaraz <pabloa@laotraesquina.com.ar>
To: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:45:27 -0800
Message-ID: <C3757017.47C97%llonergan@greenplum.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <474B1407.3090607@laotraesquina.com.ar>
Hi Peter,
If you run into a scaling issue with PG (you will at those scales 1TB+), you
can deploy Greenplum DB which is PG 8.2.5 compatible. A large internet
company (look for press soon) is in production with a 150TB database on a
system capable of doing 400TB and we have others in production at 60TB,
40TB, etc. We can provide references when needed - note that we had 20
successful customer references supporting Gartner's magic quadrant report on
data warehouses which put Greenplum in the "upper visionary" area of the
magic quadrant - which only happens if your customers can scale (see this:
http://www.esj.com/business_intelligence/article.aspx?EditorialsID=8712)
In other words, no matter what happens you'll be able to scale up with your
Postgres strategy.
- Luke
On 11/26/07 10:44 AM, "Pablo Alcaraz" <pabloa@laotraesquina.com.ar> 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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: llonergan@greenplum.com, pabloa@laotraesquina.com.ar
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
In-Reply-To: <C3757017.47C97%llonergan@greenplum.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox