On 21/3/05 11:33, in article 1111368610.985160_at_yasure, "DA Morgan"
<damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote:
I would have thought the issue here is really what you plan to do with this
data, rather than the size of it - as this will also determine the strategy
used with it. I agree though that partitioning, would prima facie, be a good
idea.
More importantly though, what do you plan to keep it on? For an oracle db on
a pda, its surely a large one, but on significant hardware I have had to
manage similarly sized, indexed, transactional tables, which caused very few
problems, even before partitioning was available.
> Niall Litchfield wrote:
>
>> "DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1111208449.587556_at_yasure...
>>
>>> Chris Markle wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Say I wanted to store a row per email for 2M emails per day for 30d...
>>>> That'd be 60M rows... And assume if you're wondering how big a row is
>>>> that it's 500 bytes. That'd be a table of 30GB. In the grand scheme of
>>>> small / medium / large DBs, where it this? I sorta thought it'd be medium
>>>> size, but others are telling me that's "large". Just trying to figure out
>>>> how whacked this this...
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>
>>> I would call it small. Quite frankly not significantly larger than the
>>> database on the notebook I use for teaching at the U which is 10GB.
>>
>>
>> snip a lot of pretty good stuff about small,medium and large databases.
>>
>> I'd consider a 30gb TABLE, which seems to be what the OP is asking about to
>> be worthy of techniques such as partitioning etc which apply to large
>> databases. We aren't told if this is OLTP or not (i.e a mail server) but if
>> it is 2 million+ transactions per working day seems to me not to be
>> insignificant. Now admittedly back on the last coure I did, I got told by a
>> fellow attendee that *everyone* was a 24*7 global multi-billion dollar
>> business, but that isn't my world.
>
> I didn't say it wasn't significant ... just that it would not be
> considered large by Oracle standards.
>
> A 30GB table would be something I too would consider worthy of
> partitioning but in and of itself not especially large.
Received on Mon Mar 21 2005 - 06:24:45 CST
