From 2c769d488334bc6aab9f65a7c66e18442949d482 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bryan Newbold Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 15:03:18 -0700 Subject: commit old work --- next_thoughts.txt | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) (limited to 'next_thoughts.txt') diff --git a/next_thoughts.txt b/next_thoughts.txt index 0e89249a..8c7d12fc 100644 --- a/next_thoughts.txt +++ b/next_thoughts.txt @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ + Should probably just UUID all the (public) ids. Instead of having a separate id pointer table, could have an extra "mutable" @@ -17,3 +18,17 @@ Trade-off: easy querying for common case (wanting "active" rows) vs. robust handling of redirects (likely to be pretty common). Also, having UUID handling across more than one table. +## Scaling database + +Two scaling issues: size of database due to edits (likely billions of rows) and +desire to do complex queries/reports ("analytics"). The later is probably not a +concern, and could be handled by dumping and working on a cluster (or secondary +views, etc). So just a distraction? Simpler to have all rolled up. + +Cockroach is postgres-like; might be able to use that for HA and scaling? +Bottlenecks are probably complex joins (mitigated by "interleave"?) and bulk +import performance (one-time?). + +Using elastic for most (eg, non-logged-in) views could keep things fast. + +Cockroach seems more resourced/polished than TiDB? -- cgit v1.2.3