Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 36471
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 10, 20262026-05-10T14:23:54+00:00 2026-05-10T14:23:54+00:00

We have an InnoDB database that is about 70 GB and we expect it

  • 0

We have an InnoDB database that is about 70 GB and we expect it to grow to several hundred GB in the next 2 to 3 years. About 60 % of the data belong to a single table. Currently the database is working quite well as we have a server with 64 GB of RAM, so almost the whole database fits into memory, but we’re concerned about the future when the amount of data will be considerably larger. Right now we’re considering some way of splitting up the tables (especially the one that accounts for the biggest part of the data) and I’m now wondering, what would be the best way to do it.

The options I’m currently aware of are

  • Using MySQL Partitioning that comes with version 5.1
  • Using some kind of third party library that encapsulates the partitioning of the data (like hibernate shards)
  • Implementing it ourselves inside our application

Our application is built on J2EE and EJB 2.1 (hopefully we’re switching to EJB 3 some day).

What would you suggest?

EDIT (2011-02-11):
Just an update: Currently the size of the database is 380 GB, the data size of our ‘big’ table is 220 GB and the size of its index is 36 GB. So while the whole table does not fit in memory any more, the index does.
The system is still performing fine (still on the same hardware) and we’re still thinking about partitioning the data.

EDIT (2014-06-04): One more update: The size of the whole database is 1.5 TB, the size of our ‘big’ table is 1.1 TB. We upgraded our server to a 4 processor machine (Intel Xeon E7450) with 128 GB RAM. The system is still performing fine. What we’re planning to do next is putting our big table on a separate database server (we’ve already done the necessary changes in our software) while simultaneously upgrading to new hardware with 256 GB RAM.

This setup is supposed to last for two years. Then we will either have to finally start implementing a sharding solution or just buy servers with 1 TB of RAM which should keep us going for some time.

EDIT (2016-01-18):

We have since put our big table in it’s own database on a separate server. Currently the size ot this database is about 1.9 TB, the size of the other database (with all tables except for the ‘big’ one) is 1.1 TB.

Current Hardware setup:

  • HP ProLiant DL 580
  • 4 x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7- 4830
  • 256 GB RAM

Performance is fine with this setup.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. 2026-05-10T14:23:54+00:00Added an answer on May 10, 2026 at 2:23 pm

    If you think you’re going to be IO/memory bound, I don’t think partitioning is going to be helpful. As usual, benchmarking first will help you figure out the best direction. If you don’t have spare servers with 64GB of memory kicking around, you can always ask your vendor for a ‘demo unit’.

    I would lean towards sharding if you don’t expect 1 query aggregate reporting. I’m assuming you’d shard the whole database and not just your big table: it’s best to keep entire entities together. Well, if your model splits nicely, anyway.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I want have a single database that uses InnoDB tables instead of myISAM tables
I have a denormalized table product with about 6 million rows (~ 2GB) mainly
1.I have a script, that executes some update/delete operations 2.All sql operations are executed
Which database engine should I use for a web crawler, InnoDB or MYiSAM? I
I have the following schema for the generation of a table/model class named Account
I am trying to get a better understanding about insertion speed and performance patterns
I need to use full text search but the tables that I am using
I am working on a project that obtains values from many measurement stations (e.g.
I'm just getting started with MySql and need to run simple queries on the
I'm using symfony 1.4 and doctrine. I've spent the last couple days playing with

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.