Re: Sizes of "large tables"

From: damorgan <dan.morgan_at_ci.seattle.wa.us>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:27:28 GMT
Message-ID: <3C6C0191.D928652B@ci.seattle.wa.us>

For huge tables you look at companies like Boeing and AT&T where I have consulted. And I would not be inclined to use the word "huge" until a table was larger than 100GB. Though distinguishing between "VERY LARGE", "HUGE", "MONSTROUS" and "PRAY FOR ME" sometimes is difficult.

Daniel Morgan

"John A. Crow" wrote:

> I would like to hear from folks on the sizes of tables that
> currently are considered large.
>
> Since there are so many things that effect the "size" of a
> table, I guess I could say I am interested in rather simple
> tables --- varchars, integers, etc., no BLOBs, and the number
> of records in these tables. It seems that places like Google
> would have absolutely *huge* tables, and I've seen mentioned
> in this NG tables of 250 M rows.
>
> Will summarize and post.
>
> Thanks -
>
> - John
Received on Thu Feb 14 2002 - 12:27:28 CST