imajes

34 ms·

1. 331.▲
   by imajes 17y ago

   a better fix is to mysqldump every table individually, and then git commit those as distinct .sql files. This way less-often updated data (reference tables, etc) tend not to need updating, and your hash generation is typically smaller. Plus
2. 332.▲
   by imajes 17y ago

   Yeah, i think there's a lot of validity in this comment... I fully expect to do stuff like abstract storage of lat/long to separate stores- so most append is really just creating a new related object- but how to store it is the fun problem
3. 333.▲
   by imajes 17y ago

   Yeah. but it's text, so i'm thinking about S3, interesting storage optimizations (alot of it would be tag data, for example,so there are plenty of fkeys). i'd shard it based on some kind of distributed scheme... though not sure what that mi
4. 334.▲
   by imajes 17y ago

   96% of change is append. 0.0001% would be delete. Sorts of views might be: "show me objects that have lat xx and long yy but tagged "buttons" and created on mm/dd/yyyy" in the basic instance, but also "show me objects that my friends like"
5. 335.▲
   by imajes 17y ago

   20KB - key/value data. Associated objects might be in the 100s of kb
6. 336.▲
   What database would you use to store (min) 10 billion objects?

   63 points by imajes 17y ago|46 comments