> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jason Jones > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 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. > */ > /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
