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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
