On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 09:01:21PM -0800, JamesD wrote:
Jeremy,
mySql has no brand recognition compared to Oracle, Sybase, MS, IBM.
Well, it doesn't have as much, that's for sure. But to say it has
none is an over-simplification.
that is why there is not enough confidence.
people buy
Michael She wrote:
The gravity is a great analogy. It works with databases too. People
are confident in gravity because it is an observable fact of our
planet. For millennia people have experienced gravity and have grown
accustomed to it. The same can be said of DB2 and Oracle. People
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
It's a sad day when confidence is built by a company's PR budget
rather than the product's track record.
You mean like Microsoft?
Oh, sorry to bring that up ... :-)
--
Michael T. Babcock
C.T.O., FibreSpeed Ltd. ... sql ... for this one :)
On Sun, Dec 22, 2002 at 10:43:49PM -0500, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
It's a sad day when confidence is built by a company's PR budget
rather than the product's track record.
You mean like Microsoft?
Yeah, they are one of the worst offenders. :-)
Oh, sorry to
and stuffing
results into variables that can be called in an instant, saves
us all time and money...
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Zawodny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:28 PM
To: JamesD
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Can MySQL handle 120 million records
.
Dean.
-Original Message-
From: JamesD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, 21 December 2002 7:33 pm
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Can MySQL handle 120 million records?
Jeremy,
if i run the command
show tables; on some database
it returns
5 rows in set (0.02
Thanks Dean.
-Original Message-
From: Dean Harding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 12:46 AM
To: 'JamesD'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Can MySQL handle 120 million records?
It's just that the number of rows in a table is stored directly in the
.MYD file (I
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:05:46PM -0800, JamesD wrote:
i like mySQL, but it has a long way to go to gain the level of
'confidence' that oracle, db2 or mssql or sybase have when it comes
to frontline mission critical stuff.
Can you explain why?
I think it will in time...thats why i stick
At 03:28 PM 12/20/2002 -0800, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
I think it will in time...thats why i stick with it. besides,
confidence is often just a synonym for 'knowledge'
Really? I tend to see it more like confidence builds with experience
(and therefore time). You don't need to know a lot about
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:28 PM
To: JamesD
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Can MySQL handle 120 million records?
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:05:46PM -0800, JamesD wrote:
i like mySQL, but it has a long way to go to gain the level of
'confidence' that oracle
Dobrý den,
quarta-feira, 18 de dezembro de 2002, 13:10:07, napsal jste:
MTB Qunfeng Dong wrote:
Another thing, with some linux system, there is a size
limit for file. MySQL seems to store each of its table
as single file. You need to choose a file system
without that limit.
MTB Just use
MySQL may be new compared to Oracle, for example, but many other
in-use DBs are in fact fairly new designs. They just happen to be
written by* large companies you recognize every day.
Any ideas about Postgresql vs. MySQL? I have always preferred MySQL
because of the speed, but I have heard
Why isn't Seq_ID not an unsigned int? Primary key should always be
something generated by the system that has no other significance than
being a primary key. If there actually is a seq_id piece of data that
has some other significance, I wouldn't use it to link all your data.
Then you don't
the software to save you from all situations is just a
bad idea.
John Griffin
-Original Message-
From: Michael She [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:36 PM
To: Michael T. Babcock
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Muruganandam
Subject: Re: Can MySQL handle 120 million records
I'm a lurker on this list but I have decided to come out of my shell for a moment. I
a previous job I was the Oracle DBA for my development team. We had a persistent
problem with Oracle corrupting the development database. Oracle had no idea with the
problem was even after I sent them a copy
At 13:08 +0100 12/19/02, Harald Fuchs wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Dyego Souza do Carmo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dobrý den,
quarta-feira, 18 de dezembro de 2002, 13:10:07, napsal jste:
MTB Qunfeng Dong wrote:
Another thing, with some linux system, there is a size
limit for
At 13:08 +0100 12/19/02, Harald Fuchs wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Dyego Souza do Carmo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dobrý den,
quarta-feira, 18 de dezembro de 2002, 13:10:07, napsal jste:
MTB Qunfeng Dong wrote:
Another thing, with some linux system, there is a size
limit for
Well, thanks to all of your great help! I am able to
speed up the query {select count(*) from NEW_Sequence
s left join NEW_Sequence_Homolog h on s.Seq_ID =
h.Seq_ID;} from 1 min 52.61 sec down to 20.62 sec now.
The only thing I changed so far was the Seq_ID from
type varchar to bigint. The Seq_ID
I agree. MySQL is a great database, but I wouldn't call it enterprise
grade. Considering that the database is used to store billing
information... one has to be weary about losing all the records due to a
bug or deficiency in MySQL. I was searching through some of the MySQL help
Being paranoid...
Have you ever lost data with MySQL before? Is it reliable. I have no
problems using MySQL as a lightweight database for simple chores, but I'm a
bit weary about putting into a mission critical environment.
At 10:19 PM 12/17/2002 -0800, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim, et al --
...and then JamesD said...
%
% I've read limits are based on the filesize your OS can handle,
% the HDD size, memory, how fast your RISC
Yeah, these make sense, but that means that they're not really mysql
limits but hardware or OS
Hi,
I've been using MySQL intercompany for a while now with great results. Even
the diehard MSSQL people are amazed at how fast it can be at time. One of the things
I use it for is to store syslog events in it. I wrote a backend that parses a syslog
file as data is being written
Qunfeng Dong wrote:
Another thing, with some linux system, there is a size
limit for file. MySQL seems to store each of its table
as single file. You need to choose a file system
without that limit.
Just use InnoDB tables for these files and you won't have a problem
AFAIK; you can have
Michael She wrote:
I agree. MySQL is a great database, but I wouldn't call it enterprise
grade. Considering that the database is used to store billing
information... one has to be weary about losing all the records due to
a bug or deficiency in
Besides actual additional features
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 02:38:31AM -0500, Michael She wrote:
Being paranoid...
Have you ever lost data with MySQL before?
No.
Is it reliable.
Yes. It doesn't crash and doesn't lose data. If it did either, we'd
never have used it this much.
I have no problems using MySQL as a
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 02:37:07AM -0500, Michael She wrote:
I agree. MySQL is a great database, but I wouldn't call it
enterprise grade.
Since you haven't told us what enterprise grade means to you, that
doesn't tell us much. What is it lacking to become enterprise grade
in your mind?
, 2002 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: Can MySQL handle 120 million records?
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 02:38:31AM -0500, Michael She wrote:
Being paranoid...
Have you ever lost data with MySQL before?
No.
Is it reliable.
Yes. It doesn't crash and doesn't lose data. If it did either, we'd
never
To: Michael She
Cc: Qunfeng Dong; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Can MySQL handle 120 million records?
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 02:37:07AM -0500, Michael She wrote:
I agree. MySQL is a great database, but I wouldn't call it
enterprise grade.
Since you haven't told us what
At 08:06 AM 12/18/2002 -0800, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
I have no problems using MySQL as a lightweight database for simple
chores, but I'm a bit weary about putting into a mission critical
environment.
Why, exactly?
Mainly for 2 reasons:
1. MySQL hasn't been proven yet in the corporate
I am very encouraged to hear all these successful
proofs. I do want to stick to MySQL (we are using it
to develop a biology database). But I am indeed seeing
not-so-good performance (join on tables much smaller
than yours takes minutes even using index) and I seem
to read all the docs I could find
Joe Stump wrote:
As Jeremy points out all DB's have their problems, shortcomings, etc. If you
have specific complaints fill out a feature request, if you've got problems
fill out a bug report, but don't knock MySQL as
There's a nice point on the MySQL site somewhere that if you really want
Subject: Re: Can MySQL handle 120 million records?
At 10:40 12/18/2002, Jocelyn Fournier wrote:
Hi,
I'm using MySQL on a database with 134 Millions of rows (10.9 GB) (some
tables contains more than 40 millions of rows) under quite high stress
(about 500 queries/sec avg). (using HEAP, MyISAM
-Original Message-
From: Joe Stump [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
We hit the 2gb file limit in Linux (NOT a MySQL problem) and
moved to Solaris without incident.
This appears to have been largely fixed in Linux, too, if you use a recent
kernel and glibc. I recently tried creating a 3
Michael She wrote:
2. Some of the comments in the mySQL manual... people losing data
doing routine stuff like table optimizations, adding keys, etc. If a
database is reliable, things like that shouldn't happen. Comments
like those in the MySQL manual scared me.
1) Do you believe this
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 12:16:00PM -0500, Michael She wrote:
At 08:06 AM 12/18/2002 -0800, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
1. MySQL hasn't been proven yet in the corporate environment
You mean in your corporate environment?
It works well in ours. :-) And we use it to store data that we serve
to
I have no problems using MySQL as a lightweight database for simple
chores, but I'm a bit weary about putting into a mission critical
environment.
1. MySQL hasn't been proven yet in the corporate environment
We run a periodic billing system backed with MySQL, in addition to
the rest of
1. MySQL hasn't been proven yet in the corporate environment
Is Yahoo! proven enough? Seriously, how many large corporations have to use
a DB in order for it to be proven? Is Access proven because every
company on the planet uses it at some level?
2. Some of the comments in the mySQL manual...
,
Jocelyn
- Original Message -
From: Michael She [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Muruganandam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Can MySQL handle 120 million records?
At 08:06 AM 12/18/2002 -0800, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
I
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael She [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Qunfeng Dong [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: Can MySQL handle 120 million records?
Without trying to sound like a troll or a rant I'd like to chime in on the
side of Jeremy
From: Michael She [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I have no problems using MySQL as a lightweight database
for simple
chores, but I'm a bit weary about putting into a mission critical
environment.
Why, exactly?
Mainly for 2 reasons:
1. MySQL hasn't been proven yet in the
W. D. wrote:
At 10:40 12/18/2002, Jocelyn Fournier wrote:
Hi,
I'm using MySQL on a database with 134 Millions of rows (10.9 GB) (some
tables contains more than 40 millions of rows) under quite high stress
(about 500 queries/sec avg). (using HEAP, MyISAM and InnoDB tables)
I never experienced
At 10:10 -0500 12/18/02, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
Qunfeng Dong wrote:
Another thing, with some linux system, there is a size
limit for file. MySQL seems to store each of its table
as single file. You need to choose a file system
without that limit.
Just use InnoDB tables for these files and
On 12/18/02 9:48 AM, Qunfeng Dong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I am indeed seeing
not-so-good performance (join on tables much smaller
than yours takes minutes even using index) and I seem
to read all the docs I could find on the web about how
to optimize but they are not working for me
Why
Qunfeng Dong wrote:
not-so-good performance (join on tables much smaller
than yours takes minutes even using index) and I seem
to read all the docs I could find on the web about how
to optimize but they are not working for me (I am
Have you stored a slow query log to run them through
At 10:40 12/18/2002, Jocelyn Fournier wrote:
Hi,
I'm using MySQL on a database with 134 Millions of rows (10.9 GB) (some
tables contains more than 40 millions of rows) under quite high stress
(about 500 queries/sec avg). (using HEAP, MyISAM and InnoDB tables)
I never experienced any losses,
At 14:28 -0500 12/18/02, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
Paul DuBois wrote:
And take a look at the last few items in the list, pertaining to page
size, max number of pages, etc.
4 billion * 16kB = max table size = 64TB
Correct? Sounds pretty serious ;-)
That's what it looks like to me!
--
At 13:05 12/18/2002, Csongor Fagyal, wrote:
What you need to have is a _good_ install, and then MySQL is superb. But
to have a good install is not as easy as it sounds.
Can you list the elements of a good install?
Start Here to Find It Fast!© - http://www.US-Webmasters.com/best-start-page/
Michael Bacarella wrote:
We've never lost data. Our database server has crashed hard from OS failures
and suffered plenty of unclean shutdowns. MySQL/InnoDB always recovers
perfectly.
Running a slave off-site tops off crash recovery almost 100%. We run a
backup of our clients' data to
Joe Stump wrote:
Like previous posters have pointed out. If given the same freedom within
Oracle's online documentation you'd have to believe there would be horror
stories outlining loss of data.
The most significant factor I've ever seen in people liking Oracle for
their sites is the
Use iostat -x while the query is running. You are likely I/O bound doing a
table scan on the protected (BIG) table.
There has been alot of discussion about RAM and CPU on this thread regarding
performance, but nothing regarding disk I/O. If you're going to put tens of
millions of records in a
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Can MySQL handle 120 million records?
Michael She wrote:
I agree. MySQL is a great database, but I wouldn't call it
enterprise
grade. Considering that the database is used to store billing
information... one has to be weary about losing all the
records
I guess you can say I'm a follower. Other DB systems have been in use for
years, so their reliability has been generally proven through use. It's
good to know that a lot of people have had success with MySQL, but
considering MySQL is the new comer, I'm still a little tepid!
At 01:22 PM
Michael She wrote:
I guess you can say I'm a follower. Other DB systems have been in use
for years, so their reliability has been generally proven through
use. It's good to know that a lot of people have had success with
MySQL, but considering MySQL is the new comer, I'm still a little
Boy, you guys are die-hard MySQL fans :-) I think your
strong defending convinced us MySQL can handle 120
million records. But I know some ordinary users out
there like me who are not experts on tuning the MySQL
performance (they did send me private emails saying
they encountered the similar slow
Boy, you guys are die-hard MySQL fans :-) I think your
strong defending convinced us MySQL can handle 120
million records :-) But I know some ordinary users out
there like me who are not experts on tuning the MySQL
performance (they did send me private emails saying
they encountered the similar
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Gerald Jensen wrote:
Joe is right ... we switched from another SQL server to MySQL in 1999, and
have never looked back.
MySQL has been rock solid for our applications, the MySQL development team
is great to work with, and our customers like it.
That's been my
What you need to have is a _good_ install, and then MySQL is superb. But
to have a good install is not as easy as it sounds.
Can you list the elements of a good install?
Well...
One which does not make mysqld hang once in every hour (or minute).
Seriously speaking, this is what I
-- Forwarded Message
From: Joseph D [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 13:55:47 -0800 (PST)
To: R. Hannes Niedner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Can MySQL handle 120 million records? - Impressive! How do you
guys do that?
thanks i actually can't post anything to the newsgroup because
Subject: Re: Can MySQL handle 120 million records? - Ok, If you guys really
can handle tens of millions records, you have to help me to enjoy MySQL too
:-)
Boy, you guys are die-hard MySQL fans :-) I think your
strong defending convinced us MySQL can handle 120
million records :-) But I know
I am proud to be a MySQL solid rock database engine user, I used it as my
backend data holder in any form. From traffic analysis to subscriber
administration. I never experienced downtime due to bug ever since. So if ur
planning to use the open source as your billing handler. U better make use
of
- Original Message -
From: Qunfeng Dong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We are trying to develop a simple biology database to
maintain some DNA Sequence information. My problem is
coming from the following two tables:
snip
Making indexes smaller will help. Does it need to be varchar(50)?
Also,
queries it is a heck of a lot faster
than MSSQL.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Peter Vertes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 6:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Can MySQL handle 120 million records?
Hi,
I've been using MySQL intercompany
hi
We are evaluating few databases for developing an application with
following specs,
1. OS not very important. Leaning towards Linux
2. Currently the database has about 5 million records but it will grow
to 120 million records.
3. The tables will have billing information for
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:10:41AM +, B.G. Mahesh wrote:
If MYSQL or Postgres can do the job I prefer not to spend the money on
Oracle/MSQL. However, if Oracle/MSQL are required for getting good
reports and scalability, so be it. We will use Oracle/MSQL.
MySQL will have no problem with
+ On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:10:41AM +, B.G. Mahesh wrote:
+
+ If MYSQL or Postgres can do the job I prefer not to spend the money on
+ Oracle/MSQL. However, if Oracle/MSQL are required for getting good
+ reports and scalability, so be it. We will use Oracle/MSQL.
+
+ MySQL will have no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
BG --
...and then B.G. Mahesh said...
%
...
%
% Thanks for the quick response. My question may not be very valid..but is
% there a upper limit on the number of records it can handle?
I'll leave this to the experts. I'm almost certain there must
I am not sure. Does anyone know any real examples of
mysql handling huge database and still perform well? I
am having problems with the performance with the MySQL
Left join recently. A big table (about 2.5 million
records) left join a small table (about 350K records)
takes generally 2 mins to
and it takes minutes with a gig of RAM
and 800 pentium III. each minute in front of a computer is
like dog years... 1 = 7
Jim
-Original Message-
From: David T-G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 8:31 PM
To: mysql users
Cc: B.G. Mahesh
Subject: Re: Can MySQL handle 120
rOn Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 08:43:38PM -0800, Qunfeng Dong wrote:
I am not sure. Does anyone know any real examples of mysql handling
huge database and still perform well?
Our largest table is about 340 million rows now. It grows by roughly
100,000 records per business day. Performance is quite
Dear Jeremy,
Can you end me the hardware details of your DB Engine server...
thanks.
muruganandam g
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
rOn Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 08:43:38PM -0800, Qunfeng Dong wrote:
I am not sure. Does anyone know any real examples of mysql handling
huge database and still perform
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 11:55:32AM -0500, Muruganandam wrote:
Dear Jeremy,
Can you end me the hardware details of your DB Engine server...
The hardware is about 2 years old now. The master is a dual P3 866
with 2GB RAM and 6 36GB SCSI disks. Some of the slaves are a little
faster (dual P3
71 matches
Mail list logo
