Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
both innodb_buffer_pool and redis they are all suppert memery. and they are all support LRU. so why should i use both redis and mysql at same time?, what's the point of using redis in my case.
my application is coding use golang(game server). It provides http api. but applications are becoming more complex. it has 100 sql query per request (20% insert/update, 80% select).because the game hasn't been released yet so
the data set is small, about 400000 rows, stress testing in progress,i want to improving it. i increased innodb_buffer_pool_size,the performance improved but it didn't meet my expectations. so i want using redis.
thanks for you answer
If the data is changing, the buffer_pool can give you up-to-the-second data; no external caching mechanism can.
It is usually folly to have a cache in front of another cache.
How big is the dataset? What do the queries look like? (That is, please provide more info so we can come closer to answering your question.)
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
i work on a project with node.js and a mysql database.
i have a connection between them with the npm modul mysql.
Now my question:
is it better to send a SQL command and sort the data in node.js or multiple detailed sql commands?
what is faster / more performant?
Thanks.
Without knowing the exact SQL queries, I would say that database operations are faster compared to your own implementation. Many smart people have worked to assure performance, accuracy, atomicity, concurrency etc. of the Mysql engine.
Even if you can gain marginal improvements in some aspect with your own code, it is unlikely that you will be able to justify the investment.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Please explain why redisdb is used in some cases. which are theese cases which redis db is used? Is redis good for managing big database or something?
Redis is an in memory data store. One popular use for Redis is as a state server, saving session information. Redis is supposed to be fast because it works with memory. So, if you used redis to hold session information, you will only hit the
machine's memory. If you used a database like mysql for session state, there is a high likelihood that disk I/O will be required.
Redis doesn't have a strong persistence mechanism and as such should not be used as an application's database.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to create a new rails application and I'm not sure whether to use MySQL or Postgres. Which one is best and what is the difference between them?
UPDATE:
The project is a health-care project. It may contain more than 500 tables.
postgres is secure, fast, and full of features but comparatively tricky to use.
MySql has its own benefits along with large user community and vast materials. Immensely helpful if you ever get stuck.
But ultimately it all comes to your preference and framework (apart from rails if your app requires any) support.
Read this for detailed comparison and insights: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_of_MySQL%3a_Comparing_Reliability_and_Speed_in_2007
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have almost a TB of data to be loaded to MYSQL database regularly once in a week.
The server used is of lower configuration and takes a long time for every upload.
Can anyone please suggest me a tool or efficient technology to handle this.
I personally found that LOAD DATA INFILE works best for me. Check it out: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/load-data.html.
But as #duffymo said, if your server simply can't handle this, it doesn't matter how you upload data, it might not be physically possible to go faster (disks can write only this much data per second).
It's not a matter of efficiency. No software will fix this. Your problem is server and network.
1TB per week? In a single instance of MySQL on an under-powered server? With no sharding or replication? I sincerely doubt that.
But if you must continue, maybe you should look into Hadoop. Keep your data in the Hadoop file system. You won't have to move it anywhere. Use Hive for SQL and let map-reduce help with the processing.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have two problems with MySQL and started wondering if I should switch to Postgres
1 - Incremental backups are only available on the paid version of MySQL.
2 - It seems that mySQL has performance issues in some cases
So, are these two problems solved with Postgres?
I guess that PostgreSQL's continuous archiving can be considered a valid alternative
for every dbms you can find plenty anecdotal evidence of situations they cannot handle properly/quickly, or only with massive help in the form of cunning query rewrites, data remodelling and whatnot. Just look around here on SO or on any of the thousands of db-centered sites all over the net to see what I mean.
In short, where 1 can be a solid argument to justify a switch (and especially from a business point of view), I wouldn't be overly concerned about 2. And if your db is slow because your datamodel is not performance friendly, you'll just carry over slowness.