Re: Correction on (Re: 500'000 records - who does best?)
From: Warren Finnerty <wfinnert_at_larry.shearson.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:35:06 GMT
Message-ID: <WFINNERT.92Dec21193506_at_larry.shearson.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:35:06 GMT
Message-ID: <WFINNERT.92Dec21193506_at_larry.shearson.com>
In article <1h5fuiINN592_at_gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> mparsons_at_fleming.csc.bcm.tmc.edu (Mark Parsons) writes:
> Boo-booed on my calc's . . ..
> 500Kx30K = 15GB . . not 15TB . . . . OK, OK, I'll pay an
> extra $0.02 for that one . .
> down to $0.86 now . .
> Mark
Yikes, it seems like my posts are glitch prone these days, should have rechecked myself. I still don't like the idea of a 15GB table given the processor power of boxes these days. Would be problematic ( take days ) to bring up the clustered index/ backup the database / update stats /dbcc. So I still say no. The 2-5 GB range is the happy limit for a table with a HP 730 / SPARC 10 type box.
-- warren finnerty | 388 Greenwich St. Lehman Brothers | NYC NY 10013 "Back off man!" | wfinnert_at_shearson.comReceived on Tue Dec 22 1992 - 01:35:06 CET