The question is how wide are your rows and how well do you index. Personally I find this the biggest issue on speed with any database. Good luck finding someone that has 100 million records. I cannot help you there.
On 4/6/06, Jason Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > */ > -- Nick Barker 785-3824 /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
