Re: Is 60M rows a lot?

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:33:37 -0800
Message-ID: <1111368610.985160@yasure>

Niall Litchfield wrote:

> "DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:1111208449.587556_at_yasure...
>

>>Chris Markle wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Folks,
>>>
>>>Say I wanted to store a row per email for 2M emails per day for 30d... 
>>>That'd be 60M rows... And assume if you're wondering how big a row is 
>>>that it's 500 bytes. That'd be a table of 30GB. In the grand scheme of 
>>>small / medium / large DBs, where it this? I sorta thought it'd be medium 
>>>size, but others are telling me that's "large". Just trying to figure out 
>>>how whacked this this...
>>>
>>>Chris
>>
>>I would call it small. Quite frankly not significantly larger than the
>>database on the notebook I use for teaching at the U which is 10GB.

>
>
> snip a lot of pretty good stuff about small,medium and large databases.
>
> I'd consider a 30gb TABLE, which seems to be what the OP is asking about to
> be worthy of techniques such as partitioning etc which apply to large
> databases. We aren't told if this is OLTP or not (i.e a mail server) but if
> it is 2 million+ transactions per working day seems to me not to be
> insignificant. Now admittedly back on the last coure I did, I got told by a
> fellow attendee that *everyone* was a 24*7 global multi-billion dollar
> business, but that isn't my world.

I didn't say it wasn't significant ... just that it would not be considered large by Oracle standards.

A 30GB table would be something I too would consider worthy of partitioning but in and of itself not especially large.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

Received on Sun Mar 20 2005 - 19:33:37 CST