| ▲ | GiorgioG 4 hours ago | |
For a vast majority of use cases 20TB is positively enormous. | ||
| ▲ | mplanchard 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
RDS caps out at 64 TB unless you use Aurora, so 20 TB is totally manageable without sharding. | ||
| ▲ | returningfory2 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
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. | ||
| ▲ | jeltz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Yes. But for most workloads it is not much for PostgreSQL. You often will not have to shard at all. | ||
| ▲ | happyopossum 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Sure, but 20TB in “the only database you need” is mere hours or minutes worth of data for many workflows. | ||
| ▲ | tingletech 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
that article seems to suggest 20TB total over the dozen deployments in prod. | ||