I'll have to agree with John on this one.. Even with 10 million records,
your database will not bad _that_ big if you aren't using columns that
are text type and storing large amounts of text within them. I have a
few friends who are developing a mysql solution for one of their
customers and are performing tests based on databases with 50 million
records in the busiest table.
John is right though.. the key definitely is optimization. Your database
and your queries as well. If you have access to a development box,
perform your testing on there and optimize at will without having to
mess with the production server. If your customer is that serious about
the integrity of their data and server performance, they should be
willing to assist you in this. You just have to make sure they
understand the impact of not being proactive. Remember.. many
non-technical people have misconceptions that just because you are a
technical person, you automatically have all the answers, which we all
know is not the case at all for any of us :-)
As John suggests, please provide some more information regarding your
current database structure, particularly the busy table you're talking
about, and also provide some examples of the queries you are doing.
Here's some things you can provide to help us help you:
1) What kind of field types are in your table?
2) What indexes do you have in place currently?
3) What are some examples of your queries?
Also, one thing I's recommend, just to note it, is try to stay away from
blobs if you can help it. They are generally more hassle than they are
worth, and will significantly increase your database size and definitely
slow performance. Cheers.
Armando
James - Developer wrote:
> I am just testing it over an ADSL connection. My client has between
> 2MB-5MB leased lines in each branch and we have 10MBps guaranteed at
> our data centre.
>
> The reason I'm testing with ADSL is because most of the web users will
> be using ADSL because it will not only be internal staff.
>
>
> James Mackie
> Appiam Ltd
> Developer
> www.appiam.com
> james@stripped
> 07884 494 333
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Paul Ashenfelter"
> <john.paul.ashenfelter@stripped>
> To: "James - Developer" <james@stripped>
> Cc: <win32@stripped>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 10:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Large DB Problem.
>
>
>> I think it's *far* more likely you need to spend some time on database
>> optimzation. 10m rows is a lot, but not that big -- there are folks
>> using MySQL for with databases over a *terabyte*. You are going to run
>> into issues as individual tables get above 2 terabytes, but I'm
>> guessing you're probably only in the 10-100GB range for the whole
>> database.
>>
>> That said, you might look at MERGE tables -- that way you can
>> partiotion the table by company, for example, but still have access to
>> the the whole thing through a merge table.
>>
>> Of course all this is speculation since the email is pretty vague :)
>> So are there particularly slow queries? And which version of
>> everything? And how are you connecting? etc, etc.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:56:39 -0000, James - Developer
>> <james@stripped> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, wondering if anyone could please help.
>>>
>>> I have been writing an ASP/MySQL application over the last 12
>>> months. In the last month the company who have paid me have brought
>>> 8 other companies which do the same as what they do. So, as you can
>>> imagine I am concerned. I have a main database with around 20
>>> tables. The busiest table / the one with potential to become the
>>> largest contains around 15 columns. I have calculated that within 6
>>> months, this table could quite easily have 10,000,000 (10m) records
>>> or worse case 200,000,000 (200m) records. So I have run a test and
>>> carried out a bulk insert of 5,000,000 (5m) records and as you can
>>> imagine, accessing this over the web is very/too slow to be practical.
>>>
>>> So, I need to split the database. My initial thought was to split
>>> the database by adding an extra table for every new client who joins
>>> and it is predicted to be 1,000 clients per year which is the same
>>> as the previous years. I then thought this would be the same as my
>>> initial method because MySQL has to first access one of the 1,000
>>> tables and then one of the thousands of records which would not make
>>> any difference.
>>>
>>> My final thought and this is my question: I have decided to add a
>>> completely new database for every client. This is not a problem
>>> because the data does not need to be relational between clients.
>>> This means having 1,000 databases/folders and I will use a DSN
>>> string with the 'database=;' value to equal the relevant
>>> client/database name. My conception is that the OS (Windows) will
>>> access any one of the 1,000 databases quicker than MySQL can and
>>> then MySQL will find the details from the relevant database which
>>> will only be 1,000th the size of my initial idea.....
>>>
>>> Does anybody know if this is correct?
>>>
>>> I certainly can't have one large table because the database will be
>>> too slow.
>>>
>>> Thanks very much in advance.
>>>
>>> James Mackie
>>> Appiam Ltd
>>> Developer
>>> www.appiam.com
>>> james@stripped
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> John Paul Ashenfelter
>> CTO/Transitionpoint
>>
>> --
>> MySQL Windows Mailing List
>> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/win32
>> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/win32?unsub=1
>>
>
>
