From: || Sudhir Nimavat || (sudhir_nimavatyahoo.com)
Date: Thu Nov 05 2009 - 00:02:19 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Ok, Now the problem is.. currently we are using mysql 4.1 and it is not possible to upgrade mysql at this time.. as far as I know mysql 4.1 does not support partitioning.. So the only solution would be to use manual partitioning and handle it through code.. Can any one tell me.. how this requirement may be satisfied with my sql 4.1.. Any ideas, inputs ? Thanks SN Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Rob <adminconnectedserver.com> To: || Sudhir Nimavat || <sudhir_nimavatyahoo.com> Sent: Mon, 2 November, 2009 3:18:05 PM Subject: Re: 50M records each year.. how to handle Hi , Yes pretty much, depending on the type of access to the records of course. But 50 million sounds like historical semi static data. It will function pretty much like a sort of raid. Having more storage devices to seek through all the data. (see your other mail), partitioning support is fine. See the example there, CREATE TABLE ti (id INT, amount DECIMAL(7,2), tr_date DATE) ENGINE=INNODB PARTITION BY HASH( MONTH(tr_date) ) PARTITIONS 6; The partitioning take place based on the tr_date colum, based on month, and chops it up in 6 partitions. There are some quirks with partitioning, like it does not automatically partition the data yet, which i think is strange, and something that you want (specially based on time). But if performance is a big issue at the moment then the manual partitioning is something worth it. Kind Regards On 11/02/2009 10:35 AM, || Sudhir Nimavat || wrote: > Thanks Rob for quick response.. > > Will that give decent performance ? > > Note: There would be more read operations and slow write.. The table > is very simple with few columns only.. > > > > > > > *Sudhir Nimavat* > *Senior software engineer. ** > Quick start global PVT LTD. > Baroda - 390007* > *Gujarat, India > > Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like > being taught > * > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Rob <adminconnectedserver.com> > *To:* || Sudhir Nimavat || <sudhir_nimavatyahoo.com> > *Sent:* Mon, 2 November, 2009 3:01:39 PM > *Subject:* Re: 50M records each year.. how to handle > > On 11/02/2009 10:27 AM, || Sudhir Nimavat || wrote: > > I have come across a requirement where I need to store a very large > amount of data in a table. > > In one of our app.. we can have around 50 Million records each > year.. Can any one guide me in choosing a strategy than can handle > this load. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > SN > > > > > > > > > > Sudhir NimavatSenior software engineer. > > Quick start global PVT LTD. > > Baroda - 390007 > > Gujarat, India > > > > Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like > being taught > > > > > > Try the new Yahoo! India Homepage. Click here. > http://in.yahoo.com/trynew > > > Consider vertical partitioning with seperate storage devices > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Add whatever you love to the Yahoo! India homepage. Try now! > <http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_metro_3/*http://in.yahoo.com/trynew> > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is > believed to be clean. The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]