Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.databases.postgresql > #243

Re: MySQL vs Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

>For example, I remember the horrors and upsets of REPAIR TABLE
>statements that took almost a day. That was with a MyISAM table around
>40 gigs (I do not remember the size exactly).

Yeah, they do.  I'm most of the way through repairing a 57G table which
takes about a day and a half.

>This means that I cannot use MyISAM, period, end of story, for
>something 100 times the size of the above. 

Hmmn.  This suggests that you might want to reread the manual.

A few moments spent looking at the MySQL manual reveals partitioned
tables and MERGE tables, both of which are reasonable ways to divide
one logical table into several physical ones.  If your data just
grows, but the oldest stuff never changes, merged tables may be
appropriate, since you can make the older tables packed and read-only.
Either way, the individual tables can be much smaller and more
tractable.

If your data naturally falls into slices (by numeric value in 5.1,
number or string in 5.5), partitioned tables may work, particularly if
you can construct your queries to take advantage of partition pruning
in your queries.

R's,
John

Back to comp.databases.postgresql | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

MySQL vs Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB Ignoramus5263 <ignoramus5263@NOSPAM.5263.invalid> - 2011-09-10 00:14 -0500
  Re: MySQL vs Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2011-09-09 23:30 -0700
    Re: MySQL vs Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB Luuk <Luuk@invalid.lan> - 2011-09-10 10:13 +0200
    Re: MySQL vs Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB Ignoramus13208 <ignoramus13208@NOSPAM.13208.invalid> - 2011-09-10 09:34 -0500
      Re: MySQL vs Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2011-09-10 19:47 +0000
        Re: MySQL vs Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB Ignoramus13208 <ignoramus13208@NOSPAM.13208.invalid> - 2011-09-10 16:02 -0500
          Re: MySQL vs Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-09-11 15:40 +0100
          Re: MySQL vs Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB Axel Schwenke <axel.schwenke@gmx.de> - 2011-09-11 18:11 +0200
            Re: MySQL vs Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB Ignoramus21330 <ignoramus21330@NOSPAM.21330.invalid> - 2011-09-11 12:07 -0500
      Re: MySQL vs Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB Norman Peelman <npeelmandog@cfl.rr.com> - 2011-09-10 19:06 -0400
  Re: MySQL vs Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB Matthew Woodcraft <mattheww@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2011-09-11 10:24 +0100
    Re: MySQL vs Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB Ignoramus21330 <ignoramus21330@NOSPAM.21330.invalid> - 2011-09-11 07:35 -0500
  Re: MySQL vs Postgres for a "data warehouse", 5-10 TB Bodo <bodo@nomail.org.invalid> - 2011-09-23 13:01 +0200

csiph-web