On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 09:50, Jaro wrote: > This project will require handling at a > minimum 40,000 records in one table alone, with realistic growth potential > for up > to 100,000 records. There will be several other tables that won't be quite > so large, but will also be in tens of thousands. A typical makeup of the > table will be 1-2 integer fields, 6-10 varchar fields (varying in length > from 8 to 50 chars), and perhaps 1-2 text fields. In my past projects i've > used MySQL almost exclusively and it's worked fine. However, i'm not sure if > it can handle datasets this large. Has anyone had experience with using > MySQL with large datasets? How does it perform? My next question is if MySQL > is not robust > enought for it, would PostgreSQL be robust enough? I'm trying to avoid going > to Oracle, primarily for cost reasons.
Don't blow your money on Oracle. I chuckled a bit at what you describe as a large dataset. I follow the postgres performance mailing list and they routinely have 100GB+ databases. That's hundred of /millions/ of rows. I've got one myself with 426,443 rows growing at around 20,000 a day and postgres is doing just fine. The key really is having an optimized schema and setting up proper indexes. I can't speak directly to MySQL's performance since I prefer Postgres but I have loaded it up with test sets greater than 100,000 rows before and haven't had any problems. Corey ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
