On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Marcus Bointon <mar...@synchromedia.co.uk>wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2009, at 09:42, Johan De Meersman wrote: > > To be honest, this sounds like more of a filesystem thing, given that you >> only ever need to select the full set of an individual user. Just build up >> an FS structure with one file per user. >> > > > You really think so? Even though I'll need to initially create about 64k > folders (keying off a user-id related hash) in order to keep files-per-dir > down to a sensible amount? Its probably about now that I start wanting a > reiserFS partition... Given that you mostly do append-only, and when you read, you don't need complex subsets, but only the full set for a given user, yes. No need to bother with the overhead of a database if you're not going to be using any of the benefits :-) Adding data won't be slower in a file than in a database - it may even be faster, as there's no query parsing and data validation. Reading a single file vs filtering a huge table to get all the records for a single user, on the other hand... -- Celsius is based on water temperature. Fahrenheit is based on alcohol temperature. Ergo, Fahrenheit is better than Celsius. QED.
