Tom Allison <tom@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I've started a database that's doing wonderfully and I'm watching the tables > grow and a steady clip. > > Performance is great, indexes are nice, sql costs are low. As far as I can > tell, I've done a respectable job of setting up the database, tables, sequence, > indexes... > > > But a little math tells me that I have one table that's particularly ugly. > > This is for a total of 6 users. > > If the user base gets to 100 or more, I'll be hitting a billion rows before too > long. I add about 70,000 rows per user per day. At 100 users this is 7 million > rows per day. I'll hit a billion in 142 days, call it six months for simplicity. > > > The table itself is small (two columns: bigint, int) but I'm wondering when I'll > start to hit a knee in performance and how I can monitor that. I know where I > work (day job) they have Oracle tables with a billion rows that just plain suck. > I don't know if a billion is bad or if the DBA's were not given the right > opportunity to make their tables work. > > But if they are any indication, I'll feeling some hurt when I exceed a billion > rows. Am I going to just fold up and die in six months? > > I can't really expect anyone to have an answer regarding hardware, table size, > performance speeds ... but is there some way I can either monitor for this or > estimate it before it happens? Why not just create a simulation of 100 users and run it as hard as your can until it starts to degrade? Then you'll have some real-world experience to tell you how much you can handle. Since you don't describe anything about the schema or application, I can't say for sure, but over the last six months, every time this has come up, we've been able to fix the problem by reorganizing the data some (i.e. materialized data, temp tables, etc) -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com
