Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
- From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
- To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:58:13 -0400
- Message-id: <20060918235810(dot)GS6030(at)mathom(dot)us>
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 07:14:56PM -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
If you have a table with 100million records, each of which is 200bytes long,
that gives you roughtly 20 gig of data (assuming it was all written neatly
and hasn't been updated much).
If you're in that range it doesn't even count as big or challenging--you
can keep it memory resident for not all that much money.
Mike Stone
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index