On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 10:00 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Mihai Popa <mihai@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've recently inherited a project that involves importing a large set of > > Access mdb files into a Postgres or MySQL database. > > The process is to export the mdb's to comma separated files than import > > those into the final database. > > We are now at the point where the csv files are all created and amount > > to some 300 GB of data. > > Compressed or uncompressed? uncompressed, but that's not much relief... and it's 800GB not 300 anymore. I still can't believe the size of this thing. > Why did you originally choose MySQL? What has changed that causes you > to rethink that decision? Does your team have experience with MySQL > but not with PostgreSQL? I did not choose it; somebody before me did. I personally have more experience with Postgres, but not with databases as large as this one promises to be. > > I like PostgreSQL, of course, but if I already had an > already-functioning app on MySQL I'd be reluctant to change it. ...and I'm not rushing to do it; I was just asking around, maybe there are known issues with MySQL, or with Postgres for that matter. > My understanding is that RDS does not support Postgres, so if you go > that route the decision is already made for you. Or am I wrong here? That's right, but I could still get an EC2 instance and run my own Postgres Or use this: http://www.enterprisedb.com/cloud-database/pricing-amazon > 1TB of storage sounds desperately small for loading 300GB of csv files. really? that's good to know; I wouldn't have guessed > IOPS would mostly depend on how you are using the system, not how large it is. mostly true -- Mihai Popa <mihai@xxxxxxxxxxx> Lattica, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
