4 ms·
> you don’t need Cassandra or other BigData database. If you did, you wouldn’t ask the question probably. ...and by the time you do, Postgres improvements will
by peatmoss 9y ago
> you don’t need Cassandra or other BigData database. If you did, you wouldn’t ask the question probably.
...and by the time you do, Postgres improvements will have rendered your Big Data medium-sized anyway :-)
- fortytw2 9y agoyou can comfortably fit 8TB of data on a single box running postgres, more dependent on your hardware :)
- kstrauser 9y agoThat's about 1/250th of our working set size. :) Of course, that's in a Spark cluster running massively parallel queries and not on a single (however large) node.
- ibotty 9y agoYou did not ask that question. I assume you knew before that PostgreSQL is not the tool for your workload.
- kstrauser 9y agoI didn’t ask a question. I love PostgreSQL for small relational stuff (where “small” is up to a few TB) and use it any time it’s appropriate. I wouldn’t classify it as a Big Data store, though. That’s no criticism at all. I wouldn’t use Spark for a transactional DB because it’s not the best tool for the job. Same for PostgreSQL when the dataset grows far beyond what a single instance can reasonably process.
- riku_iki 9y agoCurious, how long it will take to create index on single node for a such large table?