Database Dilemma... Please help.

josh coates jcoates at archive.org
Thu Apr 6 15:46:46 MDT 2006


 > Thanks anyone who points me to any helpful information.
 
good luck with your politicking.  i say use the best tool for the job, 
open source or not.  and btw, sasha is right on - it matters a lot less 
about the number of rows, and a lot more about what kind of queries you 
will be running.  other considerations are whether or not you will be 
doing any kind of db clustering or mirroring.

 >a new company headed by a guy who has created 5 of the fortune 500 
companies.

as an aside, i just want to point out that it's extremely unlikely that 
your ceo has created 5 of the current fortune 500 companies.

but, hey, maybe he did.  

which ones? http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/full_list/

-josh


 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: plug-bounces at plug.org [mailto:plug-bounces at plug.org] On
 > Behalf Of Jason Jones
 > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:07 PM
 > To: uphpu at uphpu.org; Provo Linux Users Group Mailing List
 > Subject: Database Dilemma... Please help.
 >
 > I recently got hired as the resident Linux-Geek for a new
 > company headed by a guy who has created 5 of the fortune 500
 > companies.  My co-worker (we'll call Fred) recently got hired
 > as well....  Fred has 9 years of MS-SQL DBA experience.
 >
 > We have a situation where we're using MySQL 5.0 and are only
 > dealing with very limited, read "around 100Megs" amounts of
 > data which will surely grow to more than 100 million rows of
 > data shortly.
 >
 >   Fred is luckily open-minded enough to accept the fact that
 > MySQL ($0.00) is better than MS-SQL ($15,000.00) at the
 > current time due to our lack of data.  However....  He's
 > pretty convinced that this is surely not going to be the case
 > when the data grows.
 >
 > Fred has concrete evidence of his ability to handle more than
 > 100 million rows of data per table with MS-SQL with little to
 > no loss of speed.
 >
 > I'm dead set on keeping my OSS databases, but am having a
 > hard time finding concrete evidence that either Postgres OR
 > MySQL can handle more than 100 million rows of data per table
 > without suffering speed hits.
 >
 > Can anyone here point me to something, somewhere that gives
 > numbers on any OSS datbase handling that amount of data and
 > maintaining good numbers on speed, with possible hints as to
 > its configuration?
 >
 > I've personally never handled any OSS db with more than a
 > couple hundred thousand rows TOTAL, (but have around 3 years
 > exp. handling many various smaller dbs) and am kind of
 > twitchy about what's going to happen with our db as it grows
 > exponentially to hundreds of millions of rows.
 >
 > Hardware is not an issue.  Disk space is not an issue.  The
 > only issue is whether MySQL (or PostgreSQL) can be properly
 > configured to handle hundreds of millions of rows per table
 > without hacking it into some slashdot-esque frankenstein
 > configuration.
 >
 > Any takers for this one?  I'm kind of scared I'm going to
 > lose the CEO on this battle and switch to MS-SQL.... I'm
 > dealing with a guy who is extremely competent in MS-SQL and
 > has demonstrated abilities to handle any amount of data.  If
 > I can demonstrate the same ability with an OSS solution, I'm
 > sure I'll win and keep the OSS solution, due to the obvious
 > financial advantages.
 >
 > Thanks anyone who points me to any helpful information.
 >
 > --Jason
 >
 > PS - I have a pretty good amount of experience with MySQL,
 > but am certain PostgreSQL is just as good.  If information
 > can be given about *any* OSS db solution, I'd be most
 > grateful.  Thank you.
 >
 > /*
 > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
 > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
 > Don't fear the penguin.
 > */
 >




More information about the PLUG mailing list