At 02:27 PM 11/1/2006, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
>On 11/1/06, mos wrote:
>>
>> Sure, I've thought of those too. But has anyone gotten Firebird to
>>store 700-800gb tables? Can you split Firebird's .gdb file across drives?
>>The main problem with tables of that size is maintaining the index. My
>>upper limit for MySQL is 100 million rows. After that any new rows that are
>>added will take much longer to add because the index tree has to be
>>maintained. I definitely recommend cramming as much memory in the box as
>>humanly possible because indexes of that size will need it. Probably the
>>simplist solution for MySQL is to use Merge tables. I know some people
>>with MySQL, Oracle and MS SQL have terabyte tables, but I haven't heard of
>>other databases storing tables that large. So if you or anyone else has
>>used FireBird or PostgreSQL to store terabyte tables, I'd certainly would
>>be interested in hearing about it. :)
>
>What is the big deal of a TB? Now, if you get past 20 TB you might
>want to team up with one of the commercial PostgreSQL supporters
>(Fujitsu, EnterpriseDB, Greenplum etc.), but Sun even sells appliances
>for 100 TB PostgreSQL databases.
>
>Jochem
Jochem,
There is a big difference between a 20 TB database and a 20 TB
table! Unless you're storing huge blobs, a table of over 1TB will have
hundreds of millions of rows (billions?), and that means huge index trees
that need to be maintained. If PostgreSQL can put 20 TB into a table and
still have reasonably fast inserts and queries, then I'll take my hat off
to them. But first I need to see proof that they can accomplish this. So if
you have any sites or white papers you'd like to share, go ahead. Keep in
mind we're talking about TB tables here, not databases.
Mike
>--
>MySQL General Mailing List
>For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
>To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
