3 ms·
We considered it, and I mentioned that as an alternative in my original post: MySQL Partitioning: this was the most similar to our existing set up, since MySQL
by derwiki 14y ago
We considered it, and I mentioned that as an alternative in my original post:
MySQL Partitioning: this was the most similar to our existing set up, since MySQL internally stores the data into different tables. We decided against it because it seemed likely that it wouldn’t be much faster than our current solution (although MySQL can internally do some optimizations to make sure you only look at tables that could possibly have data you want). And it’s still the same complexity we were looking to reduce (and would further be the only database set up in our system using partitioning).
- aaronblohowiak 14y agoI believe it would be faster because indexes and such are maintained per-partition, so you should not get that slowdown as the table size increases (assuming you are entering data into new partitions.) Additionally, the complexity would be the same as having one big table -- it logically is one big table, the only difference is in your CREATE TABLE statement.