I realize that this question is pretty well discussed, however I would like to get your input in the context of my specific needs.
I am developing a realtime financial database that grabs stock quotes from the net multiple times a minute and stores it in a database. I am currently working with SQLAlchemy over MySQL, but I came across Redis and it looks interesting. It looks good especially because of its performance, which is crucial in my application. I know that MySQL can be fast too, I just feel like implementing heavy caching is going to be a pain.
The data I am saving is by far mostly decimal values. I am also doing a significant amount of divisions and multiplications with these decimal values (in a different application).
In terms of data size, I am grabbing about 10,000 symbols multiple times a minute. This amounts to about 3 TB of data a year.
I am also concerned by Redis's key quantity limitation (2^32). Is Redis a good solution here? What other factors can help me make the decision either toward MySQL or Redis?
Thank you!
Redis is an in-memory store. All the data must fit in memory. So except if you have 3 TB of RAM per year of data, it is not the right option. The 2^32 limit is not really an issue in practice, because you would probably have to shard your data anyway (i.e. use multiple instances), and because the limit is actually 2^32 keys with 2^32 items per key.
If you have enough memory and still want to use (sharded) Redis, here is how you can store space efficient time series: https://github.com/antirez/redis-timeseries
You may also want to patch Redis in order to add a proper time series data structure. See Luca Sbardella's implementation at:
https://github.com/lsbardel/redis
http://lsbardel.github.com/python-stdnet/contrib/redis_timeseries.html
Redis is excellent to aggregate statistics in real time and store the result of these caclulations (i.e. DIRT applications). However, storing historical data in Redis is much less interesting, since it offers no query language to perform offline calculations on these data. Btree based stores supporting sharding (MongoDB for instance) are probably more convenient than Redis to store large time series.
Traditional relational databases are not so bad to store time series. People have dedicated entire books to this topic:
Developing Time-Oriented Database Applications in SQL
Another option you may want to consider is using a bigdata solution:
storing massive ordered time series data in bigtable derivatives
IMO the main point (whatever the storage engine) is to evaluate the access patterns to these data. What do you want to use these data for? How will you access these data once they have been stored? Do you need to retrieve all the data related to a given symbol? Do you need to retrieve the evolution of several symbols in a given time range? Do you need to correlate values of different symbols by time? etc ...
My advice is to try to list all these access patterns. The choice of a given storage mechanism will only be a consequence of this analysis.
Regarding MySQL usage, I would definitely consider table partitioning because of the volume of the data. Depending on the access patterns, I would also consider the ARCHIVE engine. This engine stores data in compressed flat files. It is space efficient. It can be used with partitioning, so despite it does not index the data, it can be efficient at retrieving a subset of data if the partition granularity is carefully chosen.
You should consider Cassandra or Hbase. Both allow contiguous storage and fast appends, so that when it comes to querying, you get huge performance. Both will easily ingest tens of thousands of points per second.
The key point is along one of your query dimensions (usually by ticker), you're accessing disk (ssd or spinning), contiguously. You're not having to hit indices millions of times. You can model things in Mongo/SQL to get similar performance, but it's more hassle, and you get it "for free" out of the box with the columnar guys, without having to do any client side shenanigans to merge blobs together.
My experience with Cassandra is that it's 10x faster than MongoDB, which is already much faster than most relational databases, for the time series use case, and as data size grows, its advantage over the others grows too. That's true even on a single machine. Here is where you should start.
The only negative on Cassandra at least is that you don't have consistency for a few seconds sometimes if you have a big cluster, so you need either to force it, slowing it down, or you accept that the very very latest print sometimes will be a few seconds old. On a single machine there will be zero consistency problems, and you'll get the same columnar benefits.
Less familiar with Hbase but it claims to be more consistent (there will be a cost elsewhere - CAP theorem), but it's much more of a commitment to setup the Hbase stack.
You should first check the features that Redis offers in terms of data selection and aggregation. Compared to an SQL database, Redis is limited.
In fact, 'Redis vs MySQL' is usually not the right question, since they are apples and pears. If you are refreshing the data in your database (also removing regularly), check out MySQL partitioning. See e.g. the answer I wrote to What is the best way to delete old rows from MySQL on a rolling basis?
>
Check out MySQL Partitioning:
Data that loses its usefulness can often be easily removed from a partitioned table by dropping the partition (or partitions) containing only that data. Conversely, the process of adding new data can in some cases be greatly facilitated by adding one or more new partitions for storing specifically that data.
See e.g. this post to get some ideas on how to apply it:
Using Partitioning and Event Scheduler to Prune Archive Tables
And this one:
Partitioning by dates: the quick how-to
Related
i have a question about Mass storage. Actually, i'm working with 5 sensors which sends a lot of datas with a different frequency for each one and i'm using MySQL DATABASE.
so here is my questions:
1) is MySQL the perfect solution.
2) if not, is there a solution to store this big quantity of data in a data base?
3) I'm using Threads in this and i'm using mutexs also, i'm afraid if this can cause problems, Actually,it seems to be.
i hope i will have an answer to this question.
MySql is good solution for OLTP scenarios where you are storing transactions to serve web or mobile apps. But it does not scale well (despite of cluster abilities).
There are many options out there based on what is important to you:
File System: You can device your own write-ahead-log solution to solve multi-threading problems and achieve "eventual consistency". That way you don't have to lock data for one thread at a time. You can use schema-full files like CSV, Avro or Parquet. Also you can use S3 or WSB for cloud based block storage. Or HDFS for just block and replicated storage.
NoSql: You can store each entry as document in NoSql Document stores. If you want to keep data in memory for faster read, explore Memcached or Redis. If you want to perform searches on data, use Solr or ElasticSearch. MongoDB is popular but it has scalability issues similar to MySql, instead I would chose Cassandra or HBase if you need more scalability. With some of NoSql stores, you might have to parse your "documents" at read time which may impact analytics performance.
RDBMS: As MySql is not scalable enough, you might explore Teradata and Oracle. Latest version of Oracle offers petabyte query capabilities and in-memory caching.
Using a database can add extra computation overhead if you have a "lot of data". Another question is what you do with the data? If you only stack them, a map/vector can be enough.
The first step is maybe to use map/vector that you can serialize to a file when needed. Second you can add the database if you wish.
About mutex if you share some code with different thread and if (in this code) you work on the same data at the same time, then you need them. Otherwise remove them. BTW if you can separate read and write operations then you don't need mutex/semaphore mechanism.
You can store data anywhere, but the data storage structure selection would depends on the use cases (the things, you want to do with the data).
It could be HDFS files, RDBMS, NoSQL DB, etc.
For example your common could be:
1. to save the sensor data very quickly.
2. get the sensor data on the definite date.
Then, you can use MongoDB or Cassandra.
If you want to get deep analytics (to get monthly average sensor data), you definitely should think about another solutions.
As for MySQL, it could also be used for some reasonable big data storage,
as it supports sharding. It fits some scenarios well, some not.
But I repeat, all would depend on use cases, i.e. the things you want to do with data.
So you could provide question with more details (define desired use-cases), or ask again.
There are several Questions that discuss "lots of data" and [mysql]. They generally say "yes, but it depends on what you will do with it".
Some general statements (YMMV):
a million rows -- no problem.
a billion rows or a terabyte of data -- You will run into problems, but they are no insurmountable.
100 inserts per second on spinning disk -- probably no problem
1000 rows/second inserted can be done; troubles are surmountable
creating "reports" from huge tables is problematical until you employ Summary Tables.
Two threads storing into the same table at the "same" time? Every RDBMS (MySQL included) solves that problem before the first release. The Mutexes (or whatever) are built into the code; you don't have to worry.
"Real time" -- If you are inserting 100 sensor values per second and comparing each value to one other value: No problem. Comparing to a million other values: big problem with any system.
"5 sensors" -- Read each hour? Yawn. Each minute? Yawn. Each second? Probably still Yawn. We need more concrete numbers to help you!
At the moment i do have a mysql database, and the data iam collecting is 5 Terrabyte a year. I will save my data all the time, i dont think i want to delete something very early.
I ask myself if i should use a distributed database because my data will grow every year. And after 5 years i will have 25 Terrabyte without index. (just calculated the raw data i save every day)
i have 5 tables and the most queries are joins over multiple tables.
And i need to access mostly 1-2 columns over many rows at a specific timestamp.
Would a distributed database be a prefered database than only a single mysql database?
Paritioning will be difficult, because all my tables are really high connected.
I know it depends on the queries and on the database table design and i can also have a distributed mysql database.
i just want to know when i should think about a distributed database.
Would this be a use case? or could mysql handle this large dataset?
EDIT:
in average i will have 1500 clients writing data per second, they affect all tables.
i just need the old dataset for analytics. Like machine learning and
pattern matching.
also a client should be able to see the historical data
Your question is about "distributed", but I see more serious questions that need answering first.
"Highly indexed 5TB" will slow to a crawl. An index is a BTree. To add a new row to an index means locating the block in that tree where the item belongs, then read-modify-write that block. But...
If the index is AUTO_INCREMENT or TIMESTAMP (or similar things), then the blocks being modified are 'always' at the 'end' of the BTree. So virtually all of the reads and writes are cacheable. That is, updating such an index is very low overhead.
If the index is 'random', such as UUID, GUID, md5, etc, then the block to update is rarely found in cache. That is, updating this one index for this one row is likely to cost a pair of IOPs. Even with SSDs, you are likely to not keep up. (Assuming you don't have several TB of RAM.)
If the index is somewhere between sequential and random (say, some kind of "name"), then there might be thousands of "hot spots" in the BTree, and these might be cacheable.
Bottom line: If you cannot avoid random indexes, your project is doomed.
Next issue... The queries. If you need to scan 5TB for a SELECT, that will take time. If this is a Data Warehouse type of application and you need to, say, summarize last month's data, then building and maintaining Summary Tables will be very important. Furthermore, this can obviate the need for some of the indexes on the 'Fact' table, thereby possibly eliminating my concern about indexes.
"See the historical data" -- See individual rows? Or just see summary info? (Again, if it is like DW, one rarely needs to see old datapoints.) If summarization will suffice, then most of the 25TB can be avoided.
Do you have a machine with 25TB online? If not, that may force you to have multiple machines. But then you will have the complexity of running queries across them.
5TB is estimated from INT = 4 bytes, etc? If using InnoDB, you need to multiple by 2 to 3 to get the actual footprint. Furthermore, if you need to modify a table in the future, such action probably needs to copy the table over, so that doubles the disk space needed. Your 25TB becomes more like 100TB of storage.
PARTITIONing has very few valid use cases, so I don't want to discuss that until knowing more.
"Sharding" (splitting across machines) is possibly what you mean by "distributed". With multiple tables, you need to think hard about how to split up the data so that JOINs will continue to work.
The 5TB is huge -- Do everything you can to shrink it -- Use smaller datatypes, normalize, etc. But don't "over-normalize", you could end up with terrible performance. (We need to see the queries!)
There are many directions to take a multi-TB db. We really need more info about your tables and queries before we can be more specific.
It's really impossible to provide a specific answer to such a wide question.
In general, I recommend only worrying about performance once you can prove that you have a problem; if you're worried, it's much better to set up a test rig, populate it with representative data, and see what happens.
"Can MySQL handle 5 - 25 TB of data?" Yes. No. Depends. If - as you say - you have no indexes, your queries may slow down a long time before you get to 5TB. If it's 5TB / year of highly indexable data it might be fine.
The most common solution to this question is to keep a "transactional" database for all the "regular" work, and a datawarehouse for reporting, using a regular Extract/Transform/Load job to move the data across, and archive it. The data warehouse typically has a schema optimized for querying, usually entirely unlike the original schema.
If you want to keep everything logically consistent, you might use sharding and clustering - a sort-a-kind-a out of the box feature of MySQL.
I would not, however, roll my own "distributed database" solution. It's much harder than you might think.
Please guide me through my problem
I receive data at every 1 sec at my server from different sources.My data is structured i parse it and now i have to store this parsed data into single table around 5 lacs of records in a day. Also daily i do lots of read operation on this table.After some time this table will have billions of record.
How should i solve this problem? I want to know should i go with RDBMS or HBase or any other option.
My question is regarding what sort of database repository you wish to use: RAM? Flash? Disk?
RAM responds in nanoseconds.
Flash in microseconds.
Disk in milliseconds.
And, of course, you might want to create a hybrid of all three, especially if some keys were "hotter" than others -- more likely to be read over and over.
If you want to do a lot of fast processing, and scale it "wide" (many CPUs in a cluster for faster read performance), you are a likely candidate for a NoSQL database. I'd need to know more about your data model to know whether it would work as a key-value store, and how it might require more internal structure such as JSON/BSON.
Caveat: I am biased towards Aerospike, my employer. Yet you should do some kicking-of-the-tires with us or any other key-value stores you're considering to see if it would work with your data before betting the farm. Obviously, each NoSQL vendor would claim itself to be "the best," but much depends on your use case. A vendor's "solution" will only work well for certain data models. We tend to be best for fast in-memory RAM/Flash or hybrid implementations.
If in case your table would reach billions of records, RDBMS definitely won't scale.
Regarding HBASE, it depends on your requirements whether it would be a good solution or not.
If you are looking for real time reads, Hbase would only help if you are only looking for a specific key. If you want to do random reads on different columns, Hbase won't be an ideal solution here. Hbase would scale really well in case of updates.
I would suggest you to design your Hbase schema efficiently and store your data in way which suits your querying.
However if you are interested in running aggregation queries you can also map your hbase table to an external table in Hive and run sql type queries on your data.
You can use HBase as a NoSQL database in this case. To make search more customized and faster use ElasticSearch along with Hbase.
If you writes are at 1/second, most of the available databases should be able to support this. Since you are looking for longer term/persistent store, you should consider a database that provides you horizontal scale so that you could add more nodes as and when you would like to increase the capacity. Databases with auto-sharding abilities would be great fit for you (cassandra, aerospike ...). Make sure you choose a auto-sharding database that doesn't require client/application to manage which data is stored where. In-memory databases would not fit the bill in this case.
When your storage is a few tera-bytes, you may have to worry about the database scale, throughput so that your infra cost doesn't bogg you down.
Your query patterns would be very crucial in choosing the right solution. You may not want to index everything, but fine-tune what you index so that you could query on the keys and/or only those data elements from within your records so that index storage overhead doesn't become too much, and hence you keep the cost under control. You should also look for time-range query ability for the database solutions, which seems to be part of your typical query pattern.
Last but not the least, you would want to have your queries processes in fastest possible time. You should try out Cassandra (good for horizontal scaling, less on the throughput) and aerospike (good for horizontal scaling, pretty good on throughput).
We are working on a project which should collect journal and audit data and store it in a datastore for archive purposes and some views. We are not quite sure which datastore would work for us.
we need to store small JSON documents, about 150 bytes, e.g. "audit:{timestamp: '86346512',host':'foo',username:'bar',task:'foo',result:0}" or "journal:{timestamp:'86346512',host':'foo',terminalid:1,type='bar',rc=0}"
we are expecting about one million entries per day, about 150 MB data
data will be stored and read but never modified
data should stored in an efficient way, e.g. binary format used by Apache Avro
after a retention time data may be deleted
custom queries, such as 'get audit for user and time period' or 'get journal for terminalid and time period'
replicated data base for failsafe
scalable
Currently we are evaluating NoSQL databases like Hadoop/Hbase, CouchDB, MongoDB and Cassandra. Are these databases the right datastore for us? Which of them would fit best?
Are there better options?
One million inserts / day is about 10 inserts / second. Most databases can deal with this, and its well below the max insertion rate we get from Cassandra on reasonable hardware (50k inserts / sec)
Your requirement "after a retention time data may be deleted" fits Cassandra's column TTLs nicely - when you insert data you can specify how long to keep it for, then background merge processes will drop that data when it reaches that timeout.
"data should stored in an efficient way, e.g. binary format used by Apache Avro" - Cassandra (like many other NOSQL stores) treats values as opaque byte sequences, so you can encode you values how ever you like. You could also consider decomposing the value into a series of columns, which would allow you to do more complicated queries.
custom queries, such as 'get audit for user and time period' - in Cassandra, you would model this by having the row key to be the user id and the column key being the time of the event (most likely a timeuuid). You would then use a get_slice call (or even better CQL) to satisfy this query
or 'get journal for terminalid and time period' - as above, have the row key be terminalid and column key be timestamp. One thing to note is that in Cassandra (like many join-less stores), it is typical to insert the data more than once (in different arrangements) to optimise for different queries.
Cassandra has a very sophisticate replication model, where you can specify different consistency levels per operation. Cassandra is also very scalable system with no single point of failure or bottleneck. This is really the main difference between Cassandra and things like MongoDB or HBase (not that I want to start a flame!)
Having said all of this, your requirements could easily be satisfied by a more traditional database and simple master-slave replication, nothing here is too onerous
Avro supports schema evolution and is a good fit for this kind of problem.
If your system does not require low latency data loads, consider receiving the data to files in a reliable file system rather than loading directly into a live database system. Keeping a reliable file system (such as HDFS) running is simpler and less likely to have outages than a live database system. Also, separating the responsibilities ensures that your query traffic won't ever impact the data collection system.
If you will only have a handful of queries to run, you could leave the files in their native format and write custom map reduces to generate the reports you need. If you want a higher level interface, consider running Hive over the native data files. Hive will let you run arbitrary friendly SQL-like queries over your raw data files. Or, since you only have 150MB/day, you could just batch load it into MySQL readonly compressed tables.
If for some reason you need the complexity of an interactive system, HBase or Cassandra or might be good fits, but beware that you'll spend a significant amount of time playing "DBA", and 150MB/day is so little data that you probably don't need the complexity.
We're using Hadoop/HBase, and I've looked at Cassandra, and they generally use the row key as the means to retrieve data the fastest, although of course (in HBase at least) you can still have it apply filters on the column data, or do it client side. For example, in HBase, you can say "give me all rows starting from key1 up to, but not including, key2".
So if you design your keys properly, you could get everything for 1 user, or 1 host, or 1 user on 1 host, or things like that. But, it takes a properly designed key. If most of your queries need to be run with a timestamp, you could include that as part of the key, for example.
How often do you need to query the data/write the data? If you expect to run your reports and it's fine if it takes 10, 15, or more minutes (potentially), but you do a lot of small writes, then HBase w/Hadoop doing MapReduce (or using Hive or Pig as higher level query languages) would work very well.
If your JSON data has variable fields, then a schema-less model like Cassandra could suit your needs very well. I'd expand the data into columns rather then storing it in binary format, that will make it easier to query. With the given rate of data, it would take you 20 years to fill a 1 TB disk, so I wouldn't worry about compression.
For the example you gave, you could create two column families, Audit and Journal. The row keys would be TimeUUIDs (i.e. timestamp + MAC address to turn them into unique keys). Then the audit row you gave would have four columns, host:'foo', username:'bar', task:'foo', and result:0. Other rows could have different columns.
A range scan over the row keys would allow you to query efficiently over time periods (assuming you use ByteOrderedPartitioner). You could then use secondary indexes to query on users and terminals.
I am trying to apply for a job, which asks for the experiences on handling large scale data sets using relational database, like mySQL.
I would like to know which specific skill sets are required for handling large scale data using MySQL.
Handling large scale data with MySQL isn't just a specific set of skills, as there are a bazillion ways to deal with a large data set. Some basic things to understand are:
Column Indexes, how, why, and when they're used, and the pros and cons of using them.
Good database structure to balance between fast writes and easy reads.
Caching, leveraging several layers of caching and different caching technologies (memcached, redis, etc)
Examining MySQL queries to identify bottlenecks and understanding the MySQL internals to see how queries get planned an executed by the database server in order to increase query performance
Configuring the MySQL server to be able to handle a lot of concurrent connections, and access it's data fast. Hardware bottlenecks, and the advantages to using different technologies to speed up your hardware (for example, storing your MySQL data on a RAID5 Array to increase IO performance))
Leveraging built-in MySQL technology (like Replication) to off-load read traffic
These are just a few things that get thought about in regards to big data in MySQL. There's a TON more, which is why the company is looking for experience in the area. Knowing what to do, or having experience with things that have worked or failed for you is an absolutely invaluable asset to bring to a company that deals with high traffic, high availability, and high volume services.
edit
I would be remis if I didn't mention a source for more information. Check out High Performance MySQL. This is an incredible book, and has a plethora of information on how to make MySQL perform in all scenarios. Definitely worth the money, and the time spent reading it.
edit -- good structure for balanced writes and reads
With this point, I was referring to the topic of normalization / de-normalization. If you're familiar with DB design, you know that normalization is the separation of data as to reduce (eliminate) the amount of duplicate data you have about any single record. This is generally a fantastic idea, as it makes tables smaller, faster to query, easier to index (individually) and reduces the number of writes you have to do in order to create/update a new record.
There are different levels of normalization (as #Adam Robinson pointed out in the comments below) which are referred to as normal forms. Almost every web application I've worked with hasn't had much benefit beyond the 3NF (3rd Normal Form). Which the definition of, if you were to read that wikipedia link above, will probably make your head hurt. So in lamens (at the risk of dumbing it down too far...) a 3NF structure satisfies the following rules:
No duplicate columns within the same table.
Create different tables for each set related data. (Example: a Companies table which has a list of companies, and an Employees table which has a list of each companies' employees)
No sub-sets of columns which apply to multiple rows in a table. (Example: zip_code, state, and city is a sub-set of data which can be identified uniquely by zip_code. These 3 columns could be put in their own table, and referenced by the Employees table (in the previous example) by the zip_code). This eliminates large sets of duplication within your tables, so any change that is required to the city/state for any zip code is a single write operation instead of 1 write for every employee who lives in that zip code.
Each sub-set of data is moved to it's own table and is identified by it's own primary key (this is touched/explained in the example for #3).
Remove columns which are not fully dependent on the primary key. (An example here might be if your Employees table has start_date, end_date, and years_employed columns. The start_date and end_date are both unique and dependent on any single employee row, but the years_employed can be derived by subtracting start_date from end_date. This is important because as end-date increases, so does years_employed so if you were to update end_date you'd also have to update years_employed (2 writes instead of 1)
A fully normalized (3NF) database table structure is great, if you've got a very heavy write-load. If your server is doing a lot of writes, it's very easy to write small bits of data, especially when you're running fewer of them. The drawback is, all your reads become much more expensive, because you have to (typically) run a lot of JOIN queries when you're pulling data out. JOINs are typically expensive and harder to create proper indexes for when you're utilizing WHERE clauses that span the relationship and when sorting the result-sets If you have to perform a lot of reads (SELECTs) on your data-set, using a 3NF structure can cause you some performance problems. This is because as your tables grow you're asking MySQL to cram more and more table data (and indexes) into memory. Ideally this is what you want, but with big data-sets you're just not going to have enough memory to fit all of this at once. This is when MySQL starts to create temporary tables, and has to use the disk to load data and manipulate it. Once MySQL becomes reliant on the hard disk to serve up query results you're going to see a significant performance drop. This is less-so the case with solid state disks, but they are super expensive, and (imo) are not mature enough to use on mission critical data sets yet (i mean, unless you're prepared for them to fail and have a very fast backup recovery system in place...then use them and gonuts!).
This is the balancing part. You have to decide what kind of traffic the data you're reading/writing is going to be serving more of, and design that to be fast. In some instances, people don't mind writes being slow because they happen less frequently. In other cases, writes have to be very fast, and the reads don't have to be fast because the data isn't accessed that often (or at all, or even in real time).
Workloads that require a lot of reads benefit the most from a middle-tier caching layer. The idea is that your writes are still fast (because you're 'normal') and your reads can be slow because you're going to cache it (in memcached or something competitive to it), so you don't hit the database very frequently. The drawback here is, if your cache gets invalidated quickly, then the cache is not reducing the read load by a meaningful amount and that results in no added performance (and possibly even more overhead to check/invalidate the caches).
With workloads that have the requirement for high throughput in writes, with data that is read frequently, and can't be cached (constantly changes), you have to come up with another strategy. This could mean that you start to de-normalize your tables, by removing some of the normalization requirements you choose to satisfy, or something else. Instead of making smaller tables with less repetitive data, you make larger tables with more repetitive / redundant data. The advantage here is that your data is all in the same table, so you don't have to perform as many (or, any) JOINs to pull the data out. The drawback...writes are more expensive because you have to write in multiple places.
So with any given situation the developer(s) have to identify what kind of use the data structure is going to have to serve, and balance between any number of technologies and paradigms to achieve an acceptable solution that meets their needs. No two systems or solutions are the same which is why the employer is looking for someone with experience on how to deal with these large datasets. Finding these solutions is not something that can really be learned out of a book, it typically takes some experience in the field and experience with how different solutions performed.
I hope that helps. I know I rambled a bit, but it's really a lot of information. This is why DBAs make the big dollars (:
You need to know how to process the data in "chunks". That means instead of simply trying to manipulate the entire data set, you need to break it into smaller more manageable pieces. For example, if you had a table with 1 Billion records, a single update statement against the entire table would likely take a long time to complete, and may possibly bring the server to it's knees.
You could, however, issue a series of update statements within a loop that would update 20,000 records at a time. Each iteration of the loop you would increment your range/counters/whatever to identify the next set of records.
Also, you commit your changes at the end of each loop, thereby allowing you to stop the process and continue where you left off.
This is just one aspect of managing large data sets. You still need to know:
how to perform backups
proper indexing
database maintenance
You can raed/learn how to handle large dataset with MySQL But it is not equivalent to having actual experiences.
Straight and simple answer: Study about partitioned database and find appropriate MySQL data structure types for large scale datasets similar with the partitioned database architecture.