On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:33:15PM +0100, Aodhan Cullen wrote: > > I've got an interesting problem for you all. I'd love to hear what > you think. > > I've simplified the database design of my web application to its > root problem, so it'll be very easy to see my difficulty, and if > you're feeling generous possibly offer a solution. > > I have two tables. > > member table (circa 1,000,000 rows - 100 meg - easily fit in a single table) > username varchar(30) pk > password varchar(30) > settings varchar(30) > > > member_log table (circa 3,000,000,000 rows - a few 100 gigs - a few > 100 very simple updates and selects a second, with some quite long > selects every minute or so - when the update is being done it needs > to select the settings for the user from the member table before it > does the update to the member_log table) > > logid medint pk > fk_username varchar(30) fk > description varchar(200) > > My read/update ratio would be something along the lines of 1:3, 3 > updates for every read. So it is highly unusual, and more or less > rules replication out of the picture.
I'm unclear why you can't use replication for this. There must be an assumption about what you're doing that we do not share. If you read from the slave and write to the master, why does this not work? Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/ MySQL 4.0.13: up 24 days, processed 772,776,857 queries (365/sec. avg) -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
