[UPHPU] Database Dilemma... Please help.

Brandon Stout hplsbyufan at imapmail.org
Thu Apr 6 12:36:46 MDT 2006


This page:

http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/

lists several highlights for MySQL (especially 5.0), and has a link 
where you can contact them directly with performance (and other) 
questions.  Some other good references:

  Top 10 reasons: http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/toptenreasons.html
  Taking On the Database Giants: 
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2006/tc20060206_918648.htm
  
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2006/02/mysql_anwers_ba.html#more
  Lower database TCO: http://www.mysql.com/it-resources/white-papers/tco.php
  Performance Benchmarks whitepaper: 
http://www.mysql.com/it-resources/white-papers/performance.php

You'll need to register with MySQL.com for the last 2 links, but it's a 
free membership.

Brandon Stout
http://mscis.org


Jason Jones 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> UPHPU mailing list
> UPHPU at uphpu.org
> http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu
> IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net
>   


More information about the UPHPU mailing list