Mike, > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 07:14:56PM -0400, Alex Turner wrote: > >If you have a table with 100million records, each of which is 200bytes > long, > >that gives you roughtly 20 gig of data (assuming it was all written > neatly > >and hasn't been updated much). > I'll keep that in mind (minimizing updates during loads). My plan is updates will actually be implemented as insert to summary/history table then delete old records. The OLTP part of this will be limited to a particular set of tables that I anticipate will not be nearly as large. > If you're in that range it doesn't even count as big or challenging--you > can keep it memory resident for not all that much money. > > Mike Stone > I'm aware of that, however, *each* scan could be 100m records, and we need to keep a minimum of 12, and possibly 50 or more. So sure, if I only have 100m records total, sure, but 500m, or 1b... According to Alex's calculations, that'd be 100G for 500m records (just that one table, not including indexes).
