Take the 2-minute tour ×
Database Administrators Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for database professionals who wish to improve their database skills and learn from others in the community. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I run the SQL Anywhere DBMS, and we have a table of about 10 columns(normal text, timestamps etc). However, in my use-case, every single day, the table gets 2160000 new rows. It's also crucial that new inserts to the db takes less than 3ms.

I'm in the design phase, so the database isnt in use yet. Question is, should I put everything into one table? Or should I design my system from the start to use multiple tables, divided by for instance days? (Will this improve performance, since I'm having smaller tables?)

share|improve this question
1  
Inserting 1500 rows per second, 24 hours per day, will be you main issue. After you solve this, you can start dealing with how your DBMS will handle the big table (+45G rows per year) and the queries you want to run against it and if partitioning per day or month or whatever is worth. –  ypercube May 17 '13 at 12:36
    
Thanks, actually I did a tiny bit of calculation error. The number is 400 rows per second. 216 0000 rows over a timespan of 90 minutes(roughly every day). So 400 per second, not 1500. Anyway I know I can insert fast enough, that's not the issue. –  Henrik Alstad May 17 '13 at 13:39
    
If insert performance is not the issue, then you need to define what you mean when you say: Will this improve performance... performance in what context? What kind of operations will you need to do? –  Matt May 24 '13 at 12:51
    
Well, ok, let me put it this way: Insert performance is no issue at the moment. But in general, how many rows is needed before you could notice substantial drop in insert time? –  Henrik Alstad May 29 '13 at 1:48

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.