Re: MySQL Performance Woody Vs Sarge
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: MySQL Performance Woody Vs Sarge
- From: Simon <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 17:55:05 +1200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 429D4DB9.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20050531064959.GH18799@miami.familiasanchez.net>
- References: <429BB23D.email@example.com> <20050531013039.GD18799@miami.familiasanchez.net> <20050531035353.GC19758@infidel.spots.ab.ca> <20050531064959.GH18799@miami.familiasanchez.net>
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Step 1. Switch to Postgres.
Life's far too short to waste time reading replies like that.
Why. I was serious. He has a database that is approaching 1 million
records. MySQL simply does not perform as well with large databases.
Thus, the most logical thing to do to increase performance of the
database is to switch to a better one.
Now, other folks in this thread have suggested potential hardware
tweaks. If those work, then great. If not, then I think the next best
thing to do for performance is to use a DB that was designed to handle
larger amounts of data like that.
Well we have woody running on a 1GHz compaq server box with 1GB of RAM
and the database has over 4million records in one table alone.. It runs
fine. A record looks up, within 1 second.
So i KNOW that its not MySQL which is the problem. Also you might note
that one server (with Mysql) is running fine, where as the other server
(with MySQL) is not. These servers both have the same data with nearly
1million records. So again. Not Mysql's problem.