Dear all,
I want to know the upper limit of mysql after which Mysql-5.* fails to
handle large amount of data ( 100's of GB or 100's of TB's ) . After
which we have to move to some NoSQL databases ( Hadoop, Hive , Hbase).
Currently we have 100 of GB's data in Mysql -5.1 RDBMS.
Is anyone has
Absolutely true.
We have a master/slave pair and a secondary slave that is our 'live backup'
and we take offline every night to rsync the tarballs to tape backup too.
When it comes online, it syncs up with master. Rinse repeat. Works awesome
and seemless.
> -Original Message-
> From: Joã
Hi!
Andre Polykanine wrote:
> Hello Rolando,
>
> So if I do
> "INSERT IGNORE INTO `Votes` SET `EntryId`='12345', UserId`='789'";
> it *won't* insert the second row if there's a row with EntryId set to
> 12345 and UserId set to 789?
If you want to have at most one vote per user on any entry, IM
What particular overhead is growing ? :-)
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Geoff Galitz wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> We have a table using the memory engine and we notice in PMA that the
> overhead continues grow over time. Normally we'd optimize with such an
> issue but that is not applicable to mem
I can't speak for the MySQL people, but in my view your "workaround" is the
correct way of implementing this. It is not the database's job to keep track
of which user wants to keep what session open, and HTTP is stateless by
design. Keeping transactions open for relatively long periods of time woul
As far as I know your correcct. You can set as much slave servers as you
need.
--
João Cândido de Souza Neto
"Machiel Richards" escreveu na mensagem
news:1297774004.1798.25.camel@machielr-laptop...
> Good day all
>
>I just have a quick question in order to confirm something..
>
>
Good day all
I just have a quick question in order to confirm something..
If I remember correctly, one master are allowed to have more
than one slave server (i.e. serverA can be master to both serverB and
serverC)
Am I correct in this matter?
We are busy with a m
Hello.
We have a table using the memory engine and we notice in PMA that the overhead
continues grow over time. Normally we'd optimize with such an issue but that
is not applicable to memory based tables. So... does this pose a problem for
long term use of the table? If so, is there a reco
