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
I am given to know that video blobs should not be stored in MySQL. But what if the video is very small with a maximum length of 5 seconds. Is it okay to store small videos(less than 5 seconds) as blobs in mysql?
It's okay to store media data as a BLOB, regardless of length, as long as the content isn't larger than the maximum size for the data type (64KB for BLOB, 16MB for MEDIUMBLOB, 4GB for LONGBLOB).
Many software developers will insist that media belongs in files, not in the database, but there are good reasons to store data in a database too.
This is basically a matter of opinion. The best solution for your project may be different from their project.
Related
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 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there a standard for varchar length relating to storing company/business names?
I have looked everywhere and cannot find an answer.
If not, what would be an ideal length to cover the majority of scenarios?
I'm going to go out on a limb here:
No
There is not in general, though there are some guidelines for some of these kinds of fields, for some organisations, in some countries (see answers to List of standard lengths for database fields).
You'll have to use best judgement. Quick google search the longest I could find was a little over 100 characters - if you're not stuck for space, throw in a few hundred to be safe, otherwise why are you strapped for space? Pull it out into a lookup table, then make the column in that table wide and move on; angsting over this will not earn you anything.
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 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I am trying to decide on what will be more efficient between two different systems for MySQL to handle my data. I can either,
1: Create around 200 tables, each having around 30 rows & 5 columns.
2: Create 1 table, having around 6000 rows & 5 columns.
I am using Laravel for this project and Eloquent will be handling this. Does anybody have any opinions on this matter? I appreciate any/all responses.
Option 2.
For such low row counts the overhead both in terms of programming effort and computation of joining 200(!) tables far outweighs the "flat file" approach. Additionally, MySQL will attempt to cache the entire 6000-row table in RAM, assuming you're not storing massive BLOBs.
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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have an application which will require storage of 4-5 trillion records. I'm unfamiliar with limitations of mySQL, is it capable of data volumes this large? Is there going to be an issue with performance?
Would I be better off breaking it into multiple tables?
The limitation on your table will be the amount of memory it takes rather than the number of records per se.
On a Win32 system running NTFS, the maximum table size in MySQL is around 2TB. Assuming you have a rudimentary table with a single field of width 4 bytes, this would mean the maximum number of records a table could have is:
2000000000000 bytes / 4 bytes per field = 500000000000 = 5 billion records
So it would seem that you would not be able to use MySQL for your purposes. You can try looking into a NoSQL solution like Cassandra.
You can also read this SO article for more information.
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 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I need to know if it is more or less efficient to have multiple databases with an index of databases relative to each dataset.
I do not know to what extent multicache can adversely affect performance.
Suppose 10 bases in 2GB data each rather than a single 20GB.
For example: the data of userid 293484 are in third database.
Thanks.
Yes, this is a common technique known as sharding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shard_%28database_architecture%29
Altimately the code you will have to write to maintain such a structure will kill you.
Keep it simple, keep it in one database, and use proper design patterns and indexing.
Database engines are design to deal with large amounts of data, so if your hadrware is sufficient, your queries well structured and the design good, you should not have to many performance problems.
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 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I have 9 tables (total of 43 fields). I have access to many 1GB MySQL databases. Should I split my 9 tables over multiple databases or just pile them all into one database?
The answer depends on how much data is going to be in each table.
A table itself takes up almost no space - it's the rows that make the database size grow.
What you need to do is estimate how large each table is going to get within the foreseeable future - erring on the side of keeping the tables together.
That said, nine tables with 43 fields (assuming reasonably sized rows) would need to have hundreds of thousands of rows each to approach 1GB. I have a multi-million-row SQLite file which is only 100MB.
It depends.
How much data are you expecting?
How much more complicated is it if you have to manage multiple databases?
How much slower will it be to query multiple databases and aggregate the results?
How important is performance?
Putting everything in a single database will give you better performance (usually) and is easier to develop. You should do that until your data gets big enough that you outgrow the database.