On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 18:06 -0500, Pablo Alcaraz wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > All of those responses have cooked up quite a few topics into one. Large > > databases might mean text warehouses, XML message stores, relational > > archives and fact-based business data warehouses. > > > > The main thing is that TB-sized databases are performance critical. So > > it all depends upon your workload really as to how well PostgreSQL, or > > another other RDBMS vendor can handle them. > > > > > > Anyway, my reason for replying to this thread is that I'm planning > > changes for PostgreSQL 8.4+ that will make allow us to get bigger and > > faster databases. If anybody has specific concerns then I'd like to hear > > them so I can consider those things in the planning stages > it would be nice to do something with selects so we can recover a rowset > on huge tables using a criteria with indexes without fall running a full > scan. > > In my opinion, by definition, a huge database sooner or later will have > tables far bigger than RAM available (same for their indexes). I think > the queries need to be solved using indexes enough smart to be fast on disk. OK, I agree with this one. I'd thought that index-only plans were only for OLTP, but now I see they can also make a big difference with DW queries. So I'm very interested in this area now. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
