https://www.nextplatform.com/2015/04/07/deep-engine-revs-mysql-scales-to-trillion-rows/ In-depth coverage of high-end computing at large enterprises, supercomputing centers, hyperscale data centers, and public clouds. Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:13:16 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.1 https://www.nextplatform.com/2015/04/07/deep-engine-revs-mysql-scales-to-trillion-rows/#comment-931 Thu, 09 Apr 2015 16:52:28 +0000 http://www.nextplatform.com/?p=563#comment-931 Trillion rows is an impressive number to us too. We tested two machines (one Amazon instance 16 CPU General Purpose SSD with 64G cache, one bare metal 48 CPU HDD 5900 RPM with 128G cache) each to be used to describe Deep Engine’s architect at Percona Live Conference, April 12, 2015 next week. Both machines completed the trillion rows in about two weeks using one table respectively. It’s a simple schema with one primary index totaling around 23 TB of storage. Now we don’t recommend actually storing trillions of items on one machine, but when you think trillion, billions looks much more manageable. We do recommend Deep Engine and billions of rows. At the Percona conference we will also be demonstrating billions of rows per table will many indexes (e.g. IIBenchmark).

]]> https://www.nextplatform.com/2015/04/07/deep-engine-revs-mysql-scales-to-trillion-rows/#comment-847 Tue, 07 Apr 2015 22:20:33 +0000 http://www.nextplatform.com/?p=563#comment-847 Trillion rows per table on one server sounds too good to be true.
If that’s what was in fact claimed by Deep, did they specify server hardware specs and/or number of columns and/or uncompressed avg rows size for this trillion rows table?
What kind of queries (except inserts and most basic point or range queries) they claimed to have an acceptable response time against this trillion rows table?

]]>