News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:New in PostgreSQL 10 by peatmoss on Thursday September 21, 2017 @04:21PM (#15306991)
> 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 :-)

Re:New in PostgreSQL 10 by fortytw2 on Thursday September 21, 2017 @07:27PM (#15308162)
you can comfortably fit 8TB of data on a single box running postgres, more dependent on your hardware :)
Re:New in PostgreSQL 10 by riku_iki on Friday September 22, 2017 @05:55PM (#15316204)
Curious, how long it will take to create index on single node for a such large table?
Re:New in PostgreSQL 10 by kstrauser on Thursday September 21, 2017 @07:50PM (#15308253)
That'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.

Re:New in PostgreSQL 10 by ibotty on Friday September 22, 2017 @02:26AM (#15309834)
You did not ask that question. I assume you knew before that PostgreSQL is not the tool for your workload.
Re:New in PostgreSQL 10 by kstrauser on Friday September 22, 2017 @02:34AM (#15309858)
I 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.