|
|
|
|
|
by LeifCarrotson
3433 days ago
|
|
The speed comparisons may be well known to you, but as someone only really using trivial desktop app SQLite databases, they weren't known to me. Thanks for pointing out my errors! > I don't see how it's possible for 104GB of csv text data to decompress into only 125GB. For cvs to compress only ~20%...doesn't make sense. The CSV file itself is around 500 GB. The internal representation, which might use binary formats for numbers, or compress text, uses 125 GB. Redshift expands it to 2TB for all the indexing and mapping. > Bigger problem: The MapD software itself will be $50,000. Ouch. That's a rather large oversight. Is the author affiliated with MapD, perhaps? |
|