← Back to context Comment by ies7 9 months ago $500k for only 100 millions rows db also sounds crazy 2 comments ies7 Reply wbercx 9 months ago The largest table was 100 million rows. They could have had hundreds more tables. reinhardt 9 months ago Also curious why every comment mentions just the number of rows as the only factor that matters. A 100M rows table of 3 integer columns is quite different from 50+ columns, 5 of which are text up to a few MB long.
wbercx 9 months ago The largest table was 100 million rows. They could have had hundreds more tables. reinhardt 9 months ago Also curious why every comment mentions just the number of rows as the only factor that matters. A 100M rows table of 3 integer columns is quite different from 50+ columns, 5 of which are text up to a few MB long.
reinhardt 9 months ago Also curious why every comment mentions just the number of rows as the only factor that matters. A 100M rows table of 3 integer columns is quite different from 50+ columns, 5 of which are text up to a few MB long.
The largest table was 100 million rows. They could have had hundreds more tables.
Also curious why every comment mentions just the number of rows as the only factor that matters. A 100M rows table of 3 integer columns is quite different from 50+ columns, 5 of which are text up to a few MB long.