Actually, now that I think about it, they use a special table type that the INDEX is also the DATUM. It is possible to
recoverthe data, out of the index listing. So go down the index, then decode the indexing value - voila, a whole step
saved.I have no idea what engine these table types are in, however.
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Dennis Gearon wrote:
>
>> Google probably is much bigger, and on mainframes, and probably Oracle
>> or DB2.
>
>
> Google uses a Linux cluster and there database is HUGE. I do not know
> which database
> they use. I bet they built their own specifically for what they do.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>>
>> But the table I am worried about is the one sized >= 3.6 GIGA records.
>>
>> Tino Wildenhain wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Am Do, den 21.10.2004 schrieb Dennis Gearon um 1:30:
>>>
>>>> I am designing something that may be the size of yahoo, google,
>>>> ebay, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Just ONE many to many table could possibly have the following
>>>> characteristics:
>>>>
>>>> 3,600,000,000 records
>>>> each record is 9 fields of INT4/DATE
>>>>
>>>> Other tables will have about 5 million records of about the same size.
>>>>
>>>> There are lots of scenarios here to lessson this.
>>>>
>>>> BUT, is postgres on linux, maybe necessarily a 64 bit system,
>>>> cabable of this? And there'd be 4-5 indexes on that table.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure. Why not? 3...5mio records is not really a problem.
>>> We had bigger tables with historic commercial transactions
>>> (even on an old dual PIII/1000) with fine performance.
>>> I bet however, yahoo, google at least are much bigger :-)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Tino
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>
>
>
>