← Back to context Comment by GiorgioG 8 hours ago For a vast majority of use cases 20TB is positively enormous. 5 comments GiorgioG Reply mplanchard 8 hours ago RDS caps out at 64 TB unless you use Aurora, so 20 TB is totally manageable without sharding. jeltz 8 hours ago Yes. But for most workloads it is not much for PostgreSQL. You often will not have to shard at all. returningfory2 8 hours ago This product is for Postgres deployments that are so large they need to be sharded. For these use cases, I think 20TB is about normal. happyopossum 8 hours ago Sure, but 20TB in “the only database you need” is mere hours or minutes worth of data for many workflows. tingletech 8 hours ago that article seems to suggest 20TB total over the dozen deployments in prod.
mplanchard 8 hours ago RDS caps out at 64 TB unless you use Aurora, so 20 TB is totally manageable without sharding.
jeltz 8 hours ago Yes. But for most workloads it is not much for PostgreSQL. You often will not have to shard at all.
returningfory2 8 hours ago This product is for Postgres deployments that are so large they need to be sharded. For these use cases, I think 20TB is about normal.
happyopossum 8 hours ago Sure, but 20TB in “the only database you need” is mere hours or minutes worth of data for many workflows.
RDS caps out at 64 TB unless you use Aurora, so 20 TB is totally manageable without sharding.
Yes. But for most workloads it is not much for PostgreSQL. You often will not have to shard at all.
This product is for Postgres deployments that are so large they need to be sharded. For these use cases, I think 20TB is about normal.
Sure, but 20TB in “the only database you need” is mere hours or minutes worth of data for many workflows.
that article seems to suggest 20TB total over the dozen deployments in prod.