Note:
This topic has been translated from a Chinese forum by GPT and might contain errors.Original topic: 数据量满足多少的情况下TiDB的收益和支出性价比最高
|
username: 友利奈绪
At what data volume does TiDB offer the best cost-performance ratio in terms of benefits and expenses? Thank you for your suggestions!
Without specific data, a general rule of thumb is: if MySQL can’t handle it anymore and you’re out of options, then use TiDB. If MySQL is working well for you, there’s no need for TiDB.
Personally, I think it depends on the scale of the business. If MySQL reaches a bottleneck that cannot be resolved, you can try switching to TiDB.
The amount of data is certainly important, but it also depends on the composition of the data, the application, and other specific circumstances.
The data volume of a single point is too large, and I don’t want to split the database and tables, with too many analytical transactions.
For TiDB, you should start using it when you have around 200GB.
An improved solution is needed when using MySQL in your scenario becomes very painful and the operational pressure is high. Of course, if the business scenario has many clear performance-related metrics, you can compare MySQL and TiDB by doing some POCs to reference the final benefits and costs.
Generally, two indicators are considered:
Currently, TiDB 7.1 introduces Resource Control, which allows multiple small databases to be deployed together. This approach facilitates maintenance while implementing resource control, ensuring that some databases still have high availability and scalability. Following this logic, you don’t actually need to consider the number of rows and data volume anymore.
I think if MySQL requires sharding, then it’s time to consider using TiDB.
Sharding is absolute garbage, anyone who uses it is an idiot. If your MySQL can’t handle the load and needs sharding, just switch to TiDB. Messing around with sharding will only turn you into an idiot.
Be open to new things, but don’t be too quick to abandon the old ones 
. Before TiDB, sharding solved many problems, and many large businesses still don’t fully trust TiDB and continue to use sharding. Although sharding has many limitations, it has made significant contributions. Transactions may not be great, but storing data in MySQL gives many veteran operations a sense of security.
My personal understanding can be divided into several parts:
If the scenario involves a combination of online business and analytical business, you can consider using TiDB. TiKV provides efficient point get primary key queries, and TiFlash offers complex analytical queries for large volumes of data.
With higher version resource control, small internal systems in the enterprise can be stacked on top, which feels quite suitable.
In OLTP scenarios with single tables exceeding 20 million rows.
By leveraging resource control features, multiple businesses can share a single cluster to achieve multi-tenant isolation. This approach already covers areas with small data scales. Unless you are pursuing extreme stability, it is also recommended to place small data scale scenarios in the TiDB cluster.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
|
username: 
|
username: 
|
username: 
|
username: 
|
username: 
|
username: 
|
username: 
|
username: 
|
username: 
|
username: 
|
username: 
|
username: 
|
username: 
|
username: 
|
username: 
|
username: 
|
username: