Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A2F9FB1A5
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:10:22 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 26215-03 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:10:19 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from linuxworld.com.au (unknown [203.34.46.50])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B619FA667
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:10:16 -0400 (AST)
Received: from linuxworld.com.au (IDENT:swm@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by linuxworld.com.au (8.13.2/8.13.2) with ESMTP id l0INA0iI003685;
	Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:10:00 +1100
Received: from localhost (swm@localhost)
	by linuxworld.com.au (8.13.2/8.13.2/Submit) with ESMTP id
	l0IN9vjx003682; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:10:00 +1100
X-Authentication-Warning: linuxworld.com.au: swm owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:09:57 +1100 (EST)
From: Gavin Sherry <swm@alcove.com.au>
X-X-Sender: swm@linuxworld.com.au
To: Brian Hurt <bhurt@janestcapital.com>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres and really huge tables
In-Reply-To: <45AFD927.9050605@janestcapital.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0701191006530.3671@linuxworld.com.au>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200701/328
X-Sequence-Number: 22929

Hi Brian,

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Brian Hurt wrote:

> 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?

Here is a blog post from a user who is in the multi-tb range:

http://www.lethargy.org/~jesus/archives/49-PostreSQL-swelling.html

I think Theo sums up some of the pros and cons well.

Your best bet is a test on scale. Be sure to get our feed back if you
encounter issues.

Gavin