6 ms·
I'm going to somewhat disagree. Traditional data warehouses (teradata for example) can handle well into the petabytes. I think Ebay's main TD cluster was arou
by ironchef 13y ago
I'm going to somewhat disagree. Traditional data warehouses (teradata for example) can handle well into the petabytes. I think Ebay's main TD cluster was around 15 or 20 PB last I knew.
I think you're more along the proper direction in the single server vs N server. Every data warehouse I've worked on in the past decade or so has been multi server.
- delluminatus 13y agoWell, I think Teradata probably falls under the big data umbrella, given that its basically a distributed database, right? I was thinking more about just plain Oracle or SQL Server or whathaveyou, which can scale pretty big, big enough for 99% of companies, but not "big", and are notoriously difficult to cluster/distribute.
- ironchef 13y agoFair enough. I think the reason people struggle with classifying this stuff is because there are a lot of gray areas and it's difficult to verbalize all the details meaningfully. One could say "Oh...RDBMSes!"...but teradata is still relational...it's just distributed. "Oh! OLAP vs OLTP!"...but it's not really that either. One _could_ use teradata for a couple gig data mart just fine (and argue that it's not big data). That's why i tend to fall back to the 3 / 4 Vs that have tended to typify the 4 aspects of "big data" (volume, velocity, variety, veracity).