News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Redshift Performance and Cost by mixedbit on Monday February 25, 2013 @03:30PM (#5281548)
Which off-the-shell RDBMS can handle queries over 3 billion rows?
Re:Redshift Performance and Cost by jacques_chester on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @01:56AM (#5284392)
In 2007 I worked for a firm with a 4 billion row join table in PostgreSQL. Might've been 7 or 8, I don't recall which. It ran on a quad core server with 16Gb of RAM. Joins going through this table took about 2-3 seconds to complete.
Re:Redshift Performance and Cost by mixedbit on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @03:00AM (#5284531)
But I suspect the join must have been over an indexed column, so it did not touched 4bln rows, otherwise 2-3 seconds would be hard to believe. The group by query in the article must access all 3bln rows, which makes a huge difference.
Re:Redshift Performance and Cost by jacques_chester on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @03:19AM (#5284577)
All the columns were indexed.

I remember it well, because I was trying to explain why having tens of gigabytes of indexes wouldn't help them much if they only had 16Gb of RAM.

In terms of group-by performance, it depends a lot on the kind of data and how it's stored. For example, taking a sum on a columnar store is quite amenable to parallel solutions and a lot of databases will do that way.

Re:Redshift Performance and Cost by EwanToo on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @05:48AM (#5284895)
I can't think of an off the shelf RDBMS which can't handle queries on 3 billion rows.

SQL Server can

Oracle can

Postgres can

Even MySQL can (!)

The limitations are almost always in the hardware, not the software.

If you're looking at column based systems, you can look at Greenplum (does both row and column-based storage), InfiniDB (MySQL based), and all sorts of expensive but very fast appliance options like Netezza, Teradata, etc.

Re:Redshift Performance and Cost by jbverschoor on Monday February 25, 2013 @03:40PM (#5281635)
postgres?
Re:Redshift Performance and Cost by meritt on Monday February 25, 2013 @03:43PM (#5281659)
Counter-question: Which startup has a actual data table with over 3 billion rows?
Re:Redshift Performance and Cost by PanMan on Monday February 25, 2013 @06:01PM (#5282480)
We have just crossed 2 billion items in our datastore. While not 3 billion yet, I expect that to happen later this year.

Too bad Redshift can't handle JSON files: Converting everything will be annoying.

Re:Redshift Performance and Cost by fujibee on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @02:40AM (#5284481)
Our idea is to change from JSON on loading to Redshift, continuously. http://www.hapyrus.com/pages/flydata-for-redshift
Re:Redshift Performance and Cost by nkohari on Monday February 25, 2013 @10:49PM (#5283825)
Re:Redshift Performance and Cost by badgar on Monday February 25, 2013 @04:24PM (#5281908)
When you log every mousedown because the founder misunderstands A/B testing, 3 billion rows is easy to come by. Besides - you're busy changing the world, so you should expect to use the same technology as Facebook and Google.
Re:Redshift Performance and Cost by taligent on Monday February 25, 2013 @05:44PM (#5282394)
SAP HANA would be one but it is basically in memory so very, vey expensive.
Re:Redshift Performance and Cost by mbesto on Monday February 25, 2013 @07:44PM (#5283026)
And it's not a RDBMS. It's basically the same technology as RedShift, but not cloud based (yet).
Re:Redshift Performance and Cost by res0nat0r on Monday February 25, 2013 @07:57PM (#5283096)
Actually HANA One is available in the AWS Marketplace: https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B009KA3CRY/ref=mkt_ste...