3 ms·
> If you had some behemoth with 32TB ram and 1PB storage could all of motion fit? Postgres has a bunch of low level locks and buffers (protected by locks) whic
by aeyes 5y ago
> If you had some behemoth with 32TB ram and 1PB storage could all of motion fit?
Postgres has a bunch of low level locks and buffers (protected by locks) which are essentially single threaded. So even if you had a 500 CPU instance at some point you'd not be able to get more throughput out of it.
Of course it also depends on what you are doing. Large tables with high update rate are harder to handle than large tables which are insert only. My personal opinion is that Postgres tables with >100GB data (without indexes) are a starting to be a pain to work with, no matter how much RAM, CPU or IOPS you have.
- endisneigh 5y agoIs there a relational database that could efficiently leverage such a single powerful machine?
- gfody 5y agosql server scales incredibly well with the hardware but so does its price
- haneefmubarak 5y agoI imagine you want NUMA aware software specifically designed for multi-socket systems; off the top of my head the ones I've heard of are IBM DB2, SAP HANA, and Microsoft SQL Server — although I've had a chance to actually use any of them.
- jiggawatts 5y agoThere was a study done recently that no major DBMS product can scale past 64 cores for similar reasons that Postgres can't -- too much contention on shared resources like locks.
- jandrewrogers 5y agoNot currently for relational databases specifically as far as I know, though it is possible to build one in principle. The kinds of use cases and applications that really benefit from that kind of deployment hardware tend not to have classically relational data models.
- softawre 5y agoRight, and at that point you should be using some sort of NoSQL anyway.