Thanks for your quick response John. >From the limited information, it is mostly relational. As for usage patterns, I do not have that yet. I was just after a general feel of what is out there size wise. Regards ---------------------------------------------------- Mark Jones Principal Sales Engineer Emea http://www.enterprisedb.com/ Email: Mark.Jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Tel: 44 7711217186 Skype: Mxjones121 On 01/10/2013 22:56, "John R Pierce" <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On 10/1/2013 2:49 PM, Mark Jones wrote: >> We are currently working with a customer who is looking at a database >> of between 200-400 TB! They are after any confirmation of PG working >> at this size or anywhere near it. > > >is that really 200-400TB of relational data, or is it 199-399TB of bulk >data (blobs or whatever) interspersed with some relational metadata? > >what all is the usage pattern of this data? that determines the >feasibility of something far more than just the raw size. > > > > >-- >john r pierce 37N 122W >somewhere on the middle of the left coast > > > >-- >Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) >To make changes to your subscription: >http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
