4 ms·
That is a shagload of hardware. I had to work in MSSQL with ~100GB database and we only had, I think, 12 cores in those servers (or maybe it was just 6 + SMT).
by throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
That is a shagload of hardware. I had to work in MSSQL with ~100GB database and we only had, I think, 12 cores in those servers (or maybe it was just 6 + SMT). Avoiding IO is the key, so having enough mem to cache the working set is essential.
Those are massive, massive machines.
- hobs 6y agolmao I wish, I was running several TB databases on servers with less than 128GB of ram (thankfully we werent processing the entire set) but that amount of ram is eye popping for the dataset, many data warehouse implementations I am familiar with on MSSQL have 10TB datasets with significantly less ram than this :)
- D2187645 6y agoOn the opposite spectrum, I have have over estimated our hardware requirements with 3x 128GB machines with 32 cores each, and the uncompressed dataset is 200 mb on disk.