On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Mark Jones wrote:
> Thanks for your quick response John.
>
> From the limited information, it is mostly relational.
> As for usage patterns, I do not have that yet.
> I was just after a general feel of what is out there size wise.
>
Usage patterns are going to be c
On 10/1/2013 6:53 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
I don't think I'd recommend building a single-image PG database on that
scale but rather would shard it.
sharding only works well if your data has natural divisions and you're
not doing complex joins/aggregates across those divisions.
--
john r pi
* John R Pierce (pie...@hogranch.com) wrote:
> if we assume the tables average 1KB/record (which is a fairly large
> record size even including indexing), you're looking at 400 billion
> records. if you can populate these at 5000 records/second, it
> would take 2.5 years of 24/7 operation to popu
On 02/10/13 07:49, Mark Jones wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We are currently working with a customer who is looking at a database
> of between 200-400 TB! They are after any confirmation of PG working
> at this size or anywhere near it.
> Anyone out there worked on anything like this size in PG please? If
>
On 10/1/2013 3:00 PM, Mark Jones wrote:
>From the limited information, it is mostly relational.
phew. thats going to be a monster.400TB on 600GB 15000rpm SAS
drives in raid10 will require around 1400 drives. at 25 disks per 2U
drive tray, thats 2 6' racks of nothing but disks, and to
Maybe some of these folks can chime in?
http://cds.u-strasbg.fr/
Simbad (and I think VisieR) runs on PostgreSQL. A friend of mine is a
grad student in astronomy and he told me about them.
Jeff Ross
On 10/1/13 3:49 PM, Mark Jones wrote:
Hi all,
We are currently working with a customer who i
Thanks for your quick response John.
>From the limited information, it is mostly relational.
As for usage patterns, I do not have that yet.
I was just after a general feel of what is out there size wise.
Regards
Mark Jones
Principal Sa
On 10/1/2013 2:49 PM, Mark Jones wrote:
We are currently working with a customer who is looking at a database
of between 200-400 TB! They are after any confirmation of PG working
at this size or anywhere near it.
is that really 200-400TB of relational data, or is it 199-399TB of bulk
data (b
Hi all,
We are currently working with a customer who is looking at a database of
between 200-400 TB! They are after any confirmation of PG working at this
size or anywhere near it.
Anyone out there worked on anything like this size in PG please? If so, can
you let me know more details etc..
--
