Sizes of "large tables"

Sizes of "large tables"

Post by John A. Cro » Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:34:02



I would like to hear from folks on the sizes of tables that
currently are considered large.

Since there are so many things that effect the "size" of a
table, I guess I could say I am interested in rather simple
tables --- varchars, integers, etc., no BLOBs, and the number
of records in these tables. It seems that places like Google
would have absolutely *huge* tables, and I've seen mentioned
in this NG tables of 250 M rows.

Will summarize and post.

Thanks -

 - John

 
 
 

Sizes of "large tables"

Post by NorwoodThr » Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:18:07


I would be highly surprised if Google used an RDBMS for its search
engine...just a tidbit.

 
 
 

Sizes of "large tables"

Post by damorga » Sat, 16 Feb 2002 03:27:28


For huge tables you look at companies like Boeing and AT&T where I have
consulted. And I would not be inclined to use the word "huge" until a
table was larger than 100GB. Though distinguishing between "VERY LARGE",
"HUGE", "MONSTROUS" and "PRAY FOR ME" sometimes is difficult.

Daniel Morgan


> I would like to hear from folks on the sizes of tables that
> currently are considered large.

> Since there are so many things that effect the "size" of a
> table, I guess I could say I am interested in rather simple
> tables --- varchars, integers, etc., no BLOBs, and the number
> of records in these tables. It seems that places like Google
> would have absolutely *huge* tables, and I've seen mentioned
> in this NG tables of 250 M rows.

> Will summarize and post.

> Thanks -

>  - John

 
 
 

Sizes of "large tables"

Post by Marc Bl » Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:39:15


Have a look at

http://www.wintercorp.com

There I found a white paper about a 80 Terabyte Database, realized as
a Proof-of-Concept at British Telecom



Quote:

>I would like to hear from folks on the sizes of tables that
>currently are considered large.

>Since there are so many things that effect the "size" of a
>table, I guess I could say I am interested in rather simple
>tables --- varchars, integers, etc., no BLOBs, and the number
>of records in these tables. It seems that places like Google
>would have absolutely *huge* tables, and I've seen mentioned
>in this NG tables of 250 M rows.

>Will summarize and post.

>Thanks -

> - John

regards
Marc Blum

http://www.marcblum.de
 
 
 

Sizes of "large tables"

Post by Pete Sharma » Wed, 20 Feb 2002 02:11:09


Well we had one PRAY FOR ME where the table was over 20 TB.  That really
pushed the envelope for partitioning!

--
HTH.  Additions and corrections welcome.

Pete
Author of "Oracle8i: Architecture and Administration Exam Cram"

"Controlling developers is like herding cats."
Kevin Loney, Oracle DBA Handbook

"Oh no, it's not.  It's much harder than that!"
Bruce Pihlamae, long-term Oracle DBA


> For huge tables you look at companies like Boeing and AT&T where I have
> consulted. And I would not be inclined to use the word "huge" until a
> table was larger than 100GB. Though distinguishing between "VERY LARGE",
> "HUGE", "MONSTROUS" and "PRAY FOR ME" sometimes is difficult.

> Daniel Morgan


> > I would like to hear from folks on the sizes of tables that
> > currently are considered large.

> > Since there are so many things that effect the "size" of a
> > table, I guess I could say I am interested in rather simple
> > tables --- varchars, integers, etc., no BLOBs, and the number
> > of records in these tables. It seems that places like Google
> > would have absolutely *huge* tables, and I've seen mentioned
> > in this NG tables of 250 M rows.

> > Will summarize and post.

> > Thanks -

> >  - John

 
 
 

Sizes of "large tables"

Post by damorga » Wed, 20 Feb 2002 03:19:09


For that I would have used Teradata. But please don't tell Larry I said so.

Daniel Morgan


> Well we had one PRAY FOR ME where the table was over 20 TB.  That really
> pushed the envelope for partitioning!

> --
> HTH.  Additions and corrections welcome.

> Pete
> Author of "Oracle8i: Architecture and Administration Exam Cram"

> "Controlling developers is like herding cats."
> Kevin Loney, Oracle DBA Handbook

> "Oh no, it's not.  It's much harder than that!"
> Bruce Pihlamae, long-term Oracle DBA



> > For huge tables you look at companies like Boeing and AT&T where I have
> > consulted. And I would not be inclined to use the word "huge" until a
> > table was larger than 100GB. Though distinguishing between "VERY LARGE",
> > "HUGE", "MONSTROUS" and "PRAY FOR ME" sometimes is difficult.

> > Daniel Morgan


> > > I would like to hear from folks on the sizes of tables that
> > > currently are considered large.

> > > Since there are so many things that effect the "size" of a
> > > table, I guess I could say I am interested in rather simple
> > > tables --- varchars, integers, etc., no BLOBs, and the number
> > > of records in these tables. It seems that places like Google
> > > would have absolutely *huge* tables, and I've seen mentioned
> > > in this NG tables of 250 M rows.

> > > Will summarize and post.

> > > Thanks -

> > >  - John

 
 
 

Sizes of "large tables"

Post by godma » Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:44:42


HI Pete,

   Is there any other way to deal with PRAY-FOR-ME type of tables
other than partitioning it? Are all tables reaching 1 terabytes need to be
partitioned?

   As for me I only see tables of GB not tera!

Allan W. Tham
DBA

 
 
 

Sizes of "large tables"

Post by damorga » Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:06:33


I would seriously consider partitioning anytime the tables are in the gigabyte
range and the queries used against it are such that most queries can benefit
from being able to go against or, or only a few, partitions.

Daniel Morgan


> HI Pete,

>    Is there any other way to deal with PRAY-FOR-ME type of tables
> other than partitioning it? Are all tables reaching 1 terabytes need to be
> partitioned?

>    As for me I only see tables of GB not tera!

> Allan W. Tham
> DBA