On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 05:44:48PM +0100, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > So really, really large would mean something like 100 petabytes > > My personal opinion is that a "large" database has more than ~10 million > rows in more than ~10 tables. Surely anything like "large" or "small" is a relative measure that depends on personal experience. Because this mailing list is such a diverse group I'm not sure if they'd ever be particularly useful descriptions. If you're talking with a more cohesive group or you've already defined what you're talking about then maybe--i.e. this database is larger than that one, and so on. I'd suggest we try and not describe things as small or large and just use simple and unambiguous numeric descriptions; i.e. I'm expecting to have a couple of tables with 10 to 100 million rows and the remaining 10 to 20 supporting tables having a few hundred rows. I wouldn't expect row counts to be more accurate than a decimal log and table counts to be more accurate than a ratio of two. That's my two cents anyway! -- Sam http://samason.me.uk/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
