On Wednesday 09 October 2002 06:03 pm, Michael Peligro wrote: > On Wednesday 09 October 2002 11:56 am, Federico Sevilla III wrote: > > I do not yet manage very large databases, but have noticed that > > Our Progress 7.2 database can balloon to about 2 gigabytes every three > months. > > I'll try to do the math for approximation of the number of records the > Progress database can hold. Maybe it can give you an idea whether > PostgreSQL can stand the same stress.
Your transactions seem simple enough (in terms of operations performed) and I do think Postgres can handle the load. It's easy enough to set up so you can do actual testing and benchmarking yourself. A simple sql script filled with a million records piped through an input file via "psql <db> -f inputfile" will easily populate your db. Then a simple 'explain analyze <sql command>' on the psql prompt can give you an idea of how much time it takes to perform your operation. A simple query on a fairly small table of mine (~30K entries) on a busy box shows the following results: explain analyze select * from sample_table; NOTICE: QUERY PLAN: Seq Scan on sample_table (cost=0.00..730.75 rows=29875 width=97) (actual time=0.04..723.01 rows=29875 loops=1) Total runtime: 772.50 msec I'm not saying this is close to your scenario. I'm just pointing out that you can see fairly easily if it will scale to your needs by spending a few minutes to set it up and test. And you'll come up with the most authoritative answer at that -- from you. =) -- Deds Castillo Infiniteinfo Philippines http://www.infiniteinfo.com Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 95/98/2K _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
