I think either would work; both PostgreSQL and MS SQL Server have
success stories out there running VLDBs. It really depends on what you
know and what you have. If you have a lot of experience with Postgres
running on Linux, and not much with SQL Server on Windows, of course the
former would be a better choice for you. You stand a much better chance
working with tools you know.
Pablo Alcaraz wrote:
> I had a client that tried to use Ms Sql Server to run a 500Gb+ database.
> The database simply colapsed. They switched to Teradata and it is
> running good. This database has now 1.5Tb+.
>
> Currently I have clients using postgresql huge databases and they are
> happy. In one client's database the biggest table has 237Gb+ (only 1
> table!) and postgresql run the database without problem using
> partitioning, triggers and rules (using postgresql 8.2.5).
>
> Pablo
>
> Peter Koczan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a user who is looking to store 500+ GB of data in a database
>> (and when all the indexes and metadata are factored in, it's going to
>> be more like 3-4 TB). He is wondering how well PostgreSQL scales with
>> TB-sized databases and what can be done to help optimize them (mostly
>> hardware and config parameters, maybe a little advocacy). I can't
>> speak on that since I don't have any DBs approaching that size.
>>
>> The other part of this puzzle is that he's torn between MS SQL Server
>> (running on Windows and unsupported by us) and PostgreSQL (running on
>> Linux...which we would fully support). If any of you have ideas of how
>> well PostgreSQL compares to SQL Server, especially in TB-sized
>> databases, that would be much appreciated.
>>
>> We're running PG 8.2.5, by the way.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>