• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: images in database... a suggestion
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: images in database... a suggestion


  • Subject: Re: images in database... a suggestion
  • From: Georg Tuparev <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:20:49 +0100

Dave,

In the past we did extensive comparison of several databases for two projects - one similar to Alex' and the other is an astronomical database - a combination of many and large images and really astronomical amounts of coordinates and other catalogue data.

According to my notes, the speed of MySQL start degrading by about 30-40GB load. The number of records did not worsen the situation for simple (one table) fetches, but joins start getting slower. I do not remember the number of records though. At about 100GB MySQL was dead.

In contrast FrontBase was not shining up until 40-50GB when it start getting the bests marks. We stopped our loads at 1.7TB. At that stage only FrontBase and Oracle were working normally and PostgresSQL was struggling (later version of it work much better, but we never tested them extensively). With 1.7 TB and 470M records in the most populated table (about 300 tables in total) FrontBase was doing on average 30% better then Oracle.

If you count price, support, and maintainability, FB is probably two orders of magnitude better then Oracle. I believe only the current version of PosSQL should be considered seriously ... but the support FB gives outweighs the small price we have to pay for it.

gt

On Dec 13, 2005, at 1:22 AM, David Holt wrote:

Georg,

When you say that MySQL does not scale, at what point did you see performance start to degrade? Was the degradation a function of the size of the images, size of the database, the number of images, or number of transactions? I have seen some degradation because of the application memory requirements to stream out of the database (when handling images with a filesize greater about 15 Mb), but I don't think it was because of problems with the database itself. What does Frontbase do differently?

Thanks,

David


On 12 Dec 2005, at 4:06 PM, Georg Tuparev wrote:

Alex,

Based on my experience in the exact same type of project, I would strongly discourage you storing images in MySQL. If you decide to use FrontBase though, it should work fine if you use separate schemas and raw devices... or possibly without them too. MySQL just does not scale...

Georg Tuparev Tuparev Technologies Klipper 13 1186 VR Amstelveen The Netherlands Mobile: +31-6-55798196

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: images in database... a suggestion
      • From: Micky Holdorf <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: Re: images in database... a suggestion (From: email@hidden)
 >Re: images in database... a suggestion (From: Sam Barnum <email@hidden>)
 >Re: images in database... a suggestion (From: Geoff Hopson <email@hidden>)
 >Re: images in database... a suggestion (From: Georg Tuparev <email@hidden>)
 >Re: images in database... a suggestion (From: Geoff Hopson <email@hidden>)
 >Re: images in database... a suggestion (From: Alex Finkel <email@hidden>)
 >Re: images in database... a suggestion (From: Georg Tuparev <email@hidden>)
 >Re: images in database... a suggestion (From: David Holt <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Fun with Primitives
  • Next by Date: Re: Fun with Primitives
  • Previous by thread: Re: images in database... a suggestion
  • Next by thread: Re: images in database... a suggestion
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread