Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
- From: David Ballester <ballester.david@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:01:29 +0200
2009/7/6 David Ballester <ballester.david@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> Now certainly, you can build a >100TB Oracle instance, but the cost and >> the complexity would be challenging. In addition, presumably they only >> see this data store growing, and how do you deal with a 200, 300, 400TB >> Oracle instance? Google, for example, in 2006 had approximately 1.2PB >> of data in their structured data store. Heaven knows what it is now. >> > > > semi off topic > > Yahoo has a datawarehouse of 2PB and 24 Bilions of 'events' ( changes? ) > per day. They got postgresql source code and rebuild some parts to meet > their needs > > Afaik, they are very happy with the results > > > http://www.dbms2.com/2008/05/29/yahoo-scales-web-analytics-database-petabyte/ > > > D. > ops... seems that this year, yahoo reached the 10 PetaBytes
- References:
- No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
- From: Sunil Kanderi
- Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
- From: Nuno Souto
- RE: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
- From: Matthew Zito
- Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
- From: Nuno Souto
- RE: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
- From: Matthew Zito
- Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
- From: David Ballester
- No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam
Other related posts:
- » No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Sunil Kanderi
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Martin Berger
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Robert Freeman
- » RE: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Goulet, Richard
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Jared Still
- » RE: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Matthew Zito
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Cary Millsap
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Toon Koppelaars
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Robyn
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Niall Litchfield
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Nuno Souto
- » RE: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Matthew Zito
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Jared Still
- » RE: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Martin Brown
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Sunil Kanderi
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Pedro Alvarez Espinoza
- » RE: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Johnson, George
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Nuno Souto
- » RE: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Goulet, Richard
- » RE: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Matthew Zito
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - David Ballester
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - David Ballester
- » RE: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Matthew Zito
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - David Ballester
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Greg Rahn
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Nuno Souto
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Nuno Souto
- » RE: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Matthew Zito
- » Re: No to SQL? Anti-database movement gains steam - Nuno Souto