Shane Anderson wrote:
>
> I would like to know the limitations of Mysql with extremely large tables. I
> need to store 20+ million records. Each record would contain only 4-6 fields
> and would not be longer than 128 bytes of information. The records could be
> divided among several tables, but at what size is the performance hindered
> enough to need to split records between several smaller tables? Any
> information leading to an optimal solution would be greatly appreciated.
MySQL doesn't have a real limitation on the # of records, but I speak
only from 1/2 million record table experience. But there is a point
to that, I split my tables to have no more than that number because
I don't want to take my system offline for very long if I want to
add an index, or recover my database from a server crash. MERGE tables
might allow you to break up your large tables nicely.
But what I'm saying is true for any database, that if you have 20 million
rows, your database maintenance window has to be a lot bigger, so while
the query speed may be great on myisam with 20 millions rows, your
DBA ( or you? ) may be none too happy when adding that new index.
Comparing Oracle vs. MySQL myisam tables, MySQL will save disk space,
and provide you with much faster queries, but you have to be aware of the
table locking issues if you are doing updates/inserts/deletes mixed
with reads.
--Josh
_________________________________________________________________
Joshua Chamas Chamas Enterprises Inc.
NodeWorks >> free web link monitoring Huntington Beach, CA USA
http://www.nodeworks.com 1-714-625-4051
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
