Jasen Betts <jasen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2011-05-01, Mark Morgan Lloyd <markMLl.pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Somebody is making a very specific claim that Postgres can support a >> limited number of rows: >> >> "INPS (a data forensics team) said that there is 7 main Databases all >> hosted at different data centers but linked over a type of 'cloud' Each >> database uses PostGRESSQL which would mean the most amount of data each >> database could hold with no stability issues is aproximitely equal to >> that of 10,348,439 Rows" http://pastebin.com/MtX1MDdh >> >> Does anybody have any idea where they've got hold of this figure? > the figure is within 1% of the maximun size for data stored in text > (or bytea) column. No it isn't; the max size per field is 1GB. Although actually manipulating such field values will probably not work very well unless you have a 64-bit machine, else you'll hit address-space issues. I could believe that a specific application using specific fields in a specific way in a 32-bit machine might start to hit "out of memory" errors for field widths somewhere in the tens-of-MB range. But the stated claim is about number of rows, not row width, and the exactness and breadth of the claim is, well, ridiculous on its face. I think INPS's level of knowledge about PG must be about as good as their ability to spell it :-( BTW, there *is* a hard limit of 32TB per table, arising from the limited size of BlockNumber. But it's hard to believe that INPS's claim has anything to do with that. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
