> What forbids you to upgrade to a newer version right now?
Because I am not the person who take this decision.. I can suggest but its not in my hand
to decide.. I understand that Its taking more time thn what It would take to upgrade.. But
this is how things work..
Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught
From: Jay Ess <lists@stripped>
Cc: Mysql <mysql@stripped>
Sent: Thu, 5 November, 2009 4:58:29 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: 50M records each year.. how to handle
Sudhir N wrote:
> Hi Johan
> Thanks, This is really helpful response...
> As I said.. there would be more read operations and slow write
> operation.. I may use Application level caching of data to reduce
> select queries..
> I am totally against of using manual partitioning as it would create
> lots of problems like primary keys, joins, clusters and replication
> etc.. it would be difficult to migrate to another DB or upgrade mysql in
> future.. In future if we plan to upgrade mysql or use oracle than we
> wont be able to use built in partitioning support without modifying the
> application code because application knows about and handles partitions
> However my biggest concern is, Will mysql 4.1 be able to handle such a big table?
around 50M each year so threre can be 250M records after five years..
What forbids you to upgrade to a newer version right now? If there is a cost for you to
add another machine i think the amount of time you are investing now in finding a solution
other than upgrading (that you mention you will do anyway in the future) just grows.
And if you cannot afford another mashine for some reason you could always install multiple
versions of MySQL on the same box and slowly migrate existing data to the new version.
And if your DBA if the decider he clearly is not doing his job in assisting you.
-- MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
Yahoo! India has a new look. Take a sneak peek http://in.yahoo.com/trynew