Hello, I don't feel the the table sizet will be a problem. But how would the database function with such a huge number of queries per second.
If I read right, you will be taking a maximum (presently) of 42 channals each taking taking data at the rate of 360/sec. That would be 42x360 = 15120 queries to the database per second. Can MySql withstand this? One solution is to insert multiple rows in a single query. Possibly inserting only after a monitor has taken 100 samples (an optimal value can be found by trial). Now the number of queries would be reduced to 3.6 x 42 = 151. Something manageable for the database engine. It would do good to keep number of indeces to the minimum required and simple. Anvar. At 07:29 PM 19/02/2002 -0800, you wrote: On the largest plants we would expect to monitor, we would have about 42 separate analog channels (tables) taking data at the 360 or more times per second. Each of these tables would have two fields - a record number (index) autoincrementing, and a numeric (probably a smallint in most cases) which are change, and a couple of static identifier fields, so each record would be on the order of 100 bytes or less. Michael Mitchell, Principal, DGRI Systems --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
