From: vegiv...@gmail.com [mailto:vegiv...@gmail.com] 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 <jschwa...@the-infoshop.com> 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
