Julian Wanke wrote:
> Facebook has 1,11 Billion Accounts. If we divide this through 1000
> members per data team member they need 1 Million data team mebers,
> each of them has a salary which I would say is about 2000$.
> That means they have to pay 2 Billion US$ (!) per month to the data
> team
There servers are so good configured, that they don't need much
maintainance.
Facebook has 1,11 Billion Accounts. If we divide this through 1000 members
per data team member they need 1 Million data team mebers, each of them
has a salary which I would say is about 2000$.
That means they have
Hi:
I am sure they do not turn over a 1000 clients to a single person.
Cheers,
tedd
_
tedd.sperl...@gmail.com
http://sperling.com
On Jun 10, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Julian Wanke wrote:
> Tell this the facebook, google or nsa data team ^^
>
> Am 10.06.2013, 16:15 Uhr, schri
Tell this the facebook, google or nsa data team ^^
Am 10.06.2013, 16:15 Uhr, schrieb Tedd Sperling :
On Jun 8, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Julian Wanke wrote:
A database for each client? Isn't that over-powered? If you have 1000
clients, you would loose the overview over your databases...
What -- p
On Jun 8, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Julian Wanke wrote:
> A database for each client? Isn't that over-powered? If you have 1000
> clients, you would loose the overview over your databases...
What -- people have more than one client?!?
My thoughts:
A client is like a girlfriend -- if you have too many
Bastien Koert
On 2013-06-08, at 5:56 PM, Tamara Temple wrote:
> Tedd Sperling wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Ashley Sheridan
>> wrote:
>> dealTek wrote:
>>>
I can see the basic need for a table prefix in a case where you may use
one mysql database for several projects at
Bastien Koert
On 2013-06-08, at 5:58 PM, Tamara Temple wrote:
> Julian Wanke wrote:
>> A database for each client? Isn't that over-powered? If you have 1000
>> clients, you would loose the overview over your databases...
>
> I believe what is being talked about is one DB per application inst
Julian Wanke wrote:
> A database for each client? Isn't that over-powered? If you have 1000
> clients, you would loose the overview over your databases...
I believe what is being talked about is one DB per application install --
'client' can be a way-overloaded term.
>
> Am 08.06.2013, 21:46 U
Tedd Sperling wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> dealTek wrote:
> >
> >> I can see the basic need for a table prefix in a case where you may use
> >> one mysql database for several projects at once so as to distinguish
> >> tables per project like...
> >>
> >> -snip-
A database for each client? Isn't that over-powered? If you have 1000
clients, you would loose the overview over your databases...
Am 08.06.2013, 21:46 Uhr, schrieb Tedd Sperling :
On Jun 8, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Ashley Sheridan
wrote:
dealTek wrote:
I can see the basic need for a table pr
On Jun 8, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
dealTek wrote:
>
>> I can see the basic need for a table prefix in a case where you may use
>> one mysql database for several projects at once so as to distinguish
>> tables per project like...
>>
>> -snip-
>> however I was told a long time ago
dealTek wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I can see the basic need for a table prefix in a case where you may use
>one mysql database for several projects at once so as to distinguish
>tables per project like...
>
>
>Project 1
>
>mysales_contacts
>mysales_invoices
>etc
>
>and
>
>jobs_contacts
>jobs_invoices
>
Hi all,
I can see the basic need for a table prefix in a case where you may use one
mysql database for several projects at once so as to distinguish tables per
project like...
Project 1
mysales_contacts
mysales_invoices
etc
and
jobs_contacts
jobs_invoices
however I was told a long time ago
13 matches
Mail list logo
