@michael - benjamin answered your question. Thing is if you use mysql just for indices you are not at all using the benefits of the whole relational database engine(which is fine) but then are inheriting all its disadvantages.
You can use mysql for storing indices and then write your own sharding layer on top and then make sure network partitions are taken care of and then.. oh wait you are already starting to create a poor mans cassandra on top of Mysql. Why not just use cassandra ??? One valid argument can be mysql is solid in stability where as cassandra still yet to prove it is rock solid. But then 0.7 release looks awesome. There are some really wonderful people developing cassandra and then here to answer most of your questions and then if you still need there is Riptano(and jonathan ellis is one hell of a person to discuss your infra issues). Cheers, Deepu. On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Benjamin Black <b...@b3k.us> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Michael Dürgner <mich...@duergner.de> > wrote: > > The thing about slow on joins is true (we experience that ourselves) but > still I wonder myself, why you use cassandra for the indices. Can't you just > store them in MySQL although? > > > > ...and then shard and shard and shard to deal with hundreds of > millions or billions of rows? That's usually the trade-off. Both can > be made to work, but neither is free. > > > b >
