List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Johan De Meersman Date:July 3 2009 10:33am
Subject:Re: Best approach for DB-based event logging?
View as plain text  
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Marcus Bointon
<marcus@stripped>wrote:

> On 3 Jul 2009, at 09:42, Johan De Meersman wrote:
>
>  To be honest, this sounds like more of a filesystem thing, given that you
>> only ever need to select the full set of an individual user. Just build up
>> an FS structure with one file per user.
>>
>
>
> You really think so? Even though I'll need to initially create about 64k
> folders (keying off a user-id related hash) in order to keep files-per-dir
> down to a sensible amount? Its probably about now that I start wanting a
> reiserFS partition...


Given that you mostly do append-only, and when you read, you don't need
complex subsets, but only the full set for a given user, yes. No need to
bother with the overhead of a database if you're not going to be using any
of the benefits :-)

Adding data won't be slower in a file than in a database - it may even be
faster, as there's no query parsing and data validation.

Reading a single file vs filtering a huge table to get all the records for a
single user, on the other hand...



-- 
Celsius is based on water temperature.
Fahrenheit is based on alcohol temperature.
Ergo, Fahrenheit is better than Celsius. QED.

Thread
Best approach for DB-based event logging?Marcus Bointon1 Jul
  • Re: Best approach for DB-based event logging?Johan De Meersman3 Jul
    • Re: Best approach for DB-based event logging?Marcus Bointon3 Jul
      • Re: Best approach for DB-based event logging?Johan De Meersman3 Jul
  • Re: Best approach for DB-based event logging?nigel wood3 Jul
    • Re: Best approach for DB-based event logging?nigel wood3 Jul
      • RE: Best approach for DB-based event logging?Martin Gainty3 Jul