InnoDB

From: THERE IS NO GOD BUT (RENDLE)17 Nov 2009 11:05
To: DSLPete (THE_TGG) 31 of 34

I've ended up using SimpleDB, which has no concept of joins but permits multiple values for attributes. So instead of 4 million rows, I've got 100,000 rows with around 40 values on each. Doing the same search takes a tenth of a second, plus, I get more information back and my algorithm is much more accurate.

 

Just registered a cool domain name, going to have a prototype within a week and beta by Xmas.

 

Edit: makes that a million records with 200 values on each. Doesn't seem to make any difference to response time.

EDITED: 17 Nov 2009 11:19 by RENDLE
From: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)17 Nov 2009 11:13
To: DSLPete (THE_TGG) 32 of 34

Script kiddie? Shit, I /wish/.

 

I did write a blog once in PHP/MySQL, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was crazy. ATM I'm working on a (probably (very) low traffic) commerce site. From what you're saying it's highly unlikely that performance is going to be an issue.

From: Peter (BOUGHTONP)17 Nov 2009 11:56
To: THERE IS NO GOD BUT (RENDLE) 33 of 34
quote:
going to have a prototype within a week and beta by Xmas


Based on your podcast performance, I'm reading that as: "holding page by Xmas, prototype by summer, project abandoned for next fad by this time next year". :P



(Though I am interested in your thoughts/implementation of SimpleDB, assuming you're going to go into details on what you're doing at some point?)
From: THERE IS NO GOD BUT (RENDLE)17 Nov 2009 14:20
To: Peter (BOUGHTONP) 34 of 34

This project is being driven by my brother, though, and he's more of a completer/finisher than me.

 

I've just discovered a limitation of SimpleDB that changes the approach somewhat, but it's still the most scalable solution by a mile. I will be sharing more details soon.