Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
From: David Ballester <ballester.david_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 20:58:09 +0200
Message-ID: <6a29f8b0907061158s40580d0bk9379ae9fe74f4aa2_at_mail.gmail.com>
>
> Now certainly, you can build a >100TB Oracle instance, but the cost and
> the complexity would be challenging. In addition, presumably they only
> see this data store growing, and how do you deal with a 200, 300, 400TB
> Oracle instance? Google, for example, in 2006 had approximately 1.2PB
> of data in their structured data store. Heaven knows what it is now.
>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 20:58:09 +0200
Message-ID: <6a29f8b0907061158s40580d0bk9379ae9fe74f4aa2_at_mail.gmail.com>
>
> Now certainly, you can build a >100TB Oracle instance, but the cost and
> the complexity would be challenging. In addition, presumably they only
> see this data store growing, and how do you deal with a 200, 300, 400TB
> Oracle instance? Google, for example, in 2006 had approximately 1.2PB
> of data in their structured data store. Heaven knows what it is now.
>
semi off topic
Yahoo has a datawarehouse of 2PB and 24 Bilions of 'events' ( changes? ) per day. They got postgresql source code and rebuild some parts to meet their needs
Afaik, they are very happy with the results
http://www.dbms2.com/2008/05/29/yahoo-scales-web-analytics-database-petabyte/
D.
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Mon Jul 06 2009 - 13:58:09 CDT