From: vegivamp@stripped [mailto:vegivamp@stripped] On Behalf Of Johan De Meersman
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 5:52 AM
To: Jerry Schwartz
Cc: MY SQL Mailing list
Subject: Re: Partitioning
that's very much gonna depend on what your selects look like. For example, a
low-cardinality but often-where'd field makes an interesting candidate, as such a
partitioning will take the size of your table scans down. If you know that you'll mostly
access just last month's data, partition on year+month.
YMMV.
[JS] This is a thought experiment. The cardinality is excellent, since a give product
typically has one or two prices.
Thanks.
Regards,
Jerry Schwartz
The Infoshop by Global Information Incorporated
195 Farmington Ave.
Farmington, CT 06032
860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341
www.the-infoshop.com
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Jerry Schwartz <jschwartz@stripped> wrote:
I’d like to know your opinions about partitioning the following table. Here’s
the relevant snippet:
Create Table: CREATE TABLE `prod_price` (
`prod_price_id` varchar(15) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
`prod_id` varchar(15) DEFAULT NULL,
…
PRIMARY KEY (`prod_price_id`),
KEY `prod_id` (`prod_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8
Here’s the deal. The primary key, `prod_price_id`, is rarely used. Prices, as you
might expect, are fetched by `prod_id`. Both keys are randomly generated strings.
(Before you ask, I am not a mental health professional and am therefore not qualified to
judge my predecessor.)
How could I partition this table in a useful way?
Regards,
Jerry Schwartz
The Infoshop by Global Information Incorporated
195 Farmington Ave.
Farmington, CT 06032
860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341
<http://www.the-infoshop.com> www.the-infoshop.com
--
Bier met grenadyn
Is als mosterd by den wyn
Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel
