From: Harish TM <harish.tmh@...>
Date: 2006-06-01T16:16:50+09:00
Subject: Re: MySql limitations??

------=_Part_2989_27135218.1149146205942
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

>If the requirements are that hard and fast it may be worth the effort
>to try out a few different DBs and see which gives you performance
>closest to your needs.

>Remove the index, insert your data and re-apply the index.
>This should speed things up.


Guess thats a really good idea... thanks a lot


>1. Are your queries very dynamic? If not, you could try Berkeley DB.
>It provides a very high throughput.

>2. Is the target of multiple queries mostly the same data? If yes, I
>suggest that you take a look at 'memcached'. It helps you save on
>database round-trips.

The queries will be highly dynamic and the target of multiple quires is
hardly the same data.



harish


On 5/31/06, Srinivas Jonnalagadda <srinivas.j@siritech.com> wrote:
>
> Logan Capaldo wrote:
> >
> > On May 30, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Harish TM wrote:
> >
> >> I need an access time of about 0.05 sec. (record retrieval time)
> >
> > If the requirements are that hard and fast it may be worth the effort to
>
> > try out a few different DBs and see which gives you performance closest
> > to your needs.
> >
> >
>
> I missed the earlier mails, so I could be repeating something here --
> please pardon me!
>
> 1. Are your queries very dynamic? If not, you could try Berkeley DB.
> It provides a very high throughput.
>
> 2. Is the target of multiple queries mostly the same data? If yes, I
> suggest that you take a look at 'memcached'. It helps you save on
> database round-trips.
>
> Best regards,
>
> JS
>
>

------=_Part_2989_27135218.1149146205942--