Re: Sizes of "large tables"

For that I would have used Teradata. But please don't tell Larry I said so.

Daniel Morgan

Pete Sharman wrote:

> Well we had one PRAY FOR ME where the table was over 20 TB. That really
> pushed the envelope for partitioning!
>
> --
> HTH. Additions and corrections welcome.
>
> Pete
> Author of "Oracle8i: Architecture and Administration Exam Cram"
>
> "Controlling developers is like herding cats."
> Kevin Loney, Oracle DBA Handbook
>
> "Oh no, it's not. It's much harder than that!"
> Bruce Pihlamae, long-term Oracle DBA
>
> "damorgan" <dan.morgan_at_ci.seattle.wa.us> wrote in message
> news:3C6C0191.D928652B_at_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 Mon Feb 18 2002 - 12:19:09 CST