![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
I am designing something that may be the size of yahoo, google, ebay, etc. Just ONE many to many table could possibly have the following characteristics: 3,600,000,000 records each record is 9 fields of INT4/DATE Other tables will have about 5 million records of about the same size. There are lots of scenarios here to lessson this. BUT, is postgres on linux, maybe necessarily a 64 bit system, cabable of this? And there'd be 4-5 indexes on that table. |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hi, Am Do, den 21.10.2004 schrieb Dennis Gearon um 1:30: I am designing something that may be the size of yahoo, google, ebay, etc. Just ONE many to many table could possibly have the following characteristics: 3,600,000,000 records each record is 9 fields of INT4/DATE Other tables will have about 5 million records of about the same size. There are lots of scenarios here to lessson this. BUT, is postgres on linux, maybe necessarily a 64 bit system, cabable of this? And there'd be 4-5 indexes on that table. Sure. Why not? 3...5mio records is not really a problem. We had bigger tables with historic commercial transactions (even on an old dual PIII/1000) with fine performance. I bet however, yahoo, google at least are much bigger :-) Regards Tino |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
Google probably is much bigger, and on mainframes, and probably Oracle or DB2. |
|
But the table I am worried about is the one sized >= 3.6 GIGA records. Tino Wildenhain wrote: Hi, Am Do, den 21.10.2004 schrieb Dennis Gearon um 1:30: I am designing something that may be the size of yahoo, google, ebay, etc. Just ONE many to many table could possibly have the following characteristics: 3,600,000,000 records each record is 9 fields of INT4/DATE Other tables will have about 5 million records of about the same size. There are lots of scenarios here to lessson this. BUT, is postgres on linux, maybe necessarily a 64 bit system, cabable of this? And there'd be 4-5 indexes on that table. Sure. Why not? 3...5mio records is not really a problem. We had bigger tables with historic commercial transactions (even on an old dual PIII/1000) with fine performance. I bet however, yahoo, google at least are much bigger :-) Regards Tino ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html |
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
Dennis Gearon wrote: Google probably is much bigger, and on mainframes, and probably Oracle or DB2. Google uses a Linux cluster and there database is HUGE. I do not know which database they use. I bet they built their own specifically for what they do. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake But the table I am worried about is the one sized >= 3.6 GIGA records. Tino Wildenhain wrote: Hi, Am Do, den 21.10.2004 schrieb Dennis Gearon um 1:30: I am designing something that may be the size of yahoo, google, ebay, etc. Just ONE many to many table could possibly have the following characteristics: 3,600,000,000 records each record is 9 fields of INT4/DATE Other tables will have about 5 million records of about the same size. There are lots of scenarios here to lessson this. BUT, is postgres on linux, maybe necessarily a 64 bit system, cabable of this? And there'd be 4-5 indexes on that table. Sure. Why not? 3...5mio records is not really a problem. We had bigger tables with historic commercial transactions (even on an old dual PIII/1000) with fine performance. I bet however, yahoo, google at least are much bigger :-) Regards Tino ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html |
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
Dennis Gearon wrote: Google probably is much bigger, and on mainframes, and probably Oracle or DB2. Google uses a Linux cluster and there database is HUGE. I do not know which database they use. I bet they built their own specifically for what they do. |
#7
| |||
| |||
|
|
I am designing something that may be the size of yahoo, google, ebay, etc. |
|
Just ONE many to many table could possibly have the following characteristics: 3,600,000,000 records each record is 9 fields of INT4/DATE |
|
Other tables will have about 5 million records of about the same size. There are lots of scenarios here to lessson this. |
#8
| |||
| |||
|
|
I am designing something that may be the size of yahoo, google, ebay, etc. Just ONE many to many table could possibly have the following characteristics: 3,600,000,000 records |
#9
| |||
| |||
|
|
Gaetano Mendola wrote: Dennis Gearon wrote: I am designing something that may be the size of yahoo, google, ebay, etc. Just ONE many to many table could possibly have the following characteristics: 3,600,000,000 records This is a really huge monster one, and if you don't partition that table in some way I think you'll have nightmares with it... Regards Gaetano Mendola thanks for the input, Gaetano. |
#10
| |||
| |||
|
|
For partion in some way I don't mean only split it in more tables. You can use some available tools in postgres and continue to see this table as one but implemented behind the scenes with more tables. One usefull and impressive way is to use the inheritance in order to obtain a vertical partition 0) Decide a partition policy ( based on time stamp for example ) 1) Create an empty base table with the name that you want see as "public" 2) Create the partition using the empty table as base table 3) Create a rule on the base table so an insert or the update on it is ~ performed as a insert or an update on the right table ( using the partition ~ policy at step 0 ) in this way you are able to vacuum each partition, reindex each partition and so on in a more "feseable way" I do not immagine vacuum full or reindex a 3,600,000,000 records table... |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |