Re: Big Tables? Real Life Examples.....

Thanks for the response... to clarify: "The smaller the systems - in terms of server size the better!"

I was referring to examples. If someone has an example of a 2 billion row table running on a 64 CPU database cluster my colleague who suggested 150million is going to say it's down to server size. However, if someone is running personal oracle on a laptop they can't blame that can they.

clearer?

thanks

Ian
"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote in message news:1120483687.920448_at_yasure...
> Comments in-line.
>
> Ian Turner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there a practical limit on the size of database tables in Oracle?
>
> No. I've built single tables in the TB range. A table is a logical set
> of data and should be as large as required to perform that purpose.
>
>> Ideally I'd like some examples of systems that have tables containing
>> many millions (or even billions of records), an indication of the size of
>> server being used to run the database, the type of queries being run
>> against the table (index lookup's, table scan's, etc.) and typical times
>> for execution.
>
> Bank of America, Washington Mutual Bank, Amazon.com, eBay, Homeland
> Security, FBI, NSA, American Express. At AT&T Wireless, now Cingular,
> we had tables that added millions of records per hour.
>
> As to the size of the server that is proprietary but most are either
> using the larger *NIX boxes sold by Sun, HP, and IBM or building RAC
> clusters. Amazon.com, for example, has a 16 node cluster (64 CPUs).
>
> Types of transactions are generally inserts, very few updates, with
> data moved to a data warehouse, and often aggregated, for reporting.
>
>> The smaller the systems - in terms of server size the better!
>
> No.
>
> But you need to define your terms. What is "better"? Loose questions
> beget answers without context or meaning.
>
> But I think the answer here is clearly no.
>
>> Reason I ask is I'm getting told that it is impossible to hold all the
>> values I want - around 150million records - for performance reasons.
>
> Whoever told you that should be put out to pasture. That is barely a
> days worth of records at some banks or phone companies (and yes in one
> table).
>
>> I'd have thought Oracle wouldn't have a problem performing index lookups
>> and maybe index scans, but would not want to be running frequent table
>> scans.
>
> And I'd have thought people wouldn't give out such ridiculous advice as
> you received.
>
>> I've asked our DBA to create some test tables and fill them full of
>> sample data to see if we can get some example query times - but it would
>> be useful to have some real world examples.
>>
>> Version of Oracle is 10g on Solaris. We are probably going to use
>> commodity servers SUN V240's in a RAC configuration.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Ian
>
> Bad choice of hardware for a large database. But by Oracle's reckoning
> 150 million rows is small.
>
> My impression from the information you have presented, its high level of
> inaccuracy, and the questions you have asked, that you desparately need
> to hire at least one senior person and/or a consultant with provable
> experience.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> http://www.psoug.org
> damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)
Received on Mon Jul 04 2005 - 10:51:01 CDT