Data partitioning? Sorry, I disagree that partitioning a table into more and more servers is the way to scale properly. Perhaps putting databases' tables onto different servers with different hardware designed to meat different usage patterns is a good idea, but data partitioning was a very short lived idea in the world of databases and I'm glad that as an idea it is dying in practice. - Naz
Evaldas Imbrasas wrote: > Since the question was about *really* big websites, the answer is both > yes and no. > > Yes, they do turn off RI on the database side, simply because it's not > possible to enforce RI on a database system where data is partitioned > across server farms (or shards) both vertically and horizontally. And > really big websites can't survive without the data partioning. > > No, they don't usually turn off RI just to improve performance, > because the gains would be minimal, and for big websites, scalability > is a much bigger issue that performance (although sometimes one > depends on the other), and data partitioning is the way to go to solve > the scalability problem. > > > On 5/24/07, Naz Gassiep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm working in a project at the moment that is using MySQL, and >> people keep making assertions like this one: >> >> "*Really* big sites don't ever have referential integrity. Or if the >> few spots they do (like with financial transactions) it's implemented >> on the application level (via, say, optimistic locking), never the >> database level." >> >> A large DB working with no RI would give me nightmares. Is it really >> true that large sites turn RI off to improve performance? Am I just >> being naive in thinking that everyone runs their DBs with RI in >> production? >> > > -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
