MySql vs ??

Just thought I would float this past you

Currently with MySql & PHP - really enjoy it's flexibility

Working on a solution to replace an Access package

Data input (single file) currently 325k rows 10 fields which takes Access over 60 mins on the current machine - MySql cuts that right down to about 20 minutes (calculations being made here)

I have been informed that this is to increase to minimum 2 million rows data input and may well increase beyond that

I am sure this is beyond the 'theoretical limits' of Access - just wondered if anyone had any ideas on whether MySql would be happy at this level - or should I be going down another route.

TIA
Chris

Hoovers, D&B, Yahoo. Nasa, TI to name just a few all run on a MySQL backend and all process more than your disclosed limit. With the proper design and administration the database can handle the load.
....
For your own information and not to be debated I have run millions of rows on an MS Access database. Not optimal but can be done.

...for the input.

I guess I was just hoping someone could confirm for me that I am going the right way about this.

Thoroughly enjoying MySql & PHP - just needed to know that I was not going down the wrong avenues.

I was just getting worried re: the size of data we needed to process.

Thanks also for your comment re: Access - that has put my mind at rest as we will probably be using it for reporting

Once again many thanks

Have you considered postgreSQL? It seems to have some features that mySQL doesn't and is also free.

Postgres is a very reliable DBMS. The features that Postgres has over MySQL will soon be reduced.
http://www.mysql.com/press/release_2003_05.html
....
One feature you have in the MySQL world is the community support that is so widely available.

For the whole Postgres/MySQL debate take a look at this thread :
http://forums.devshed.com/t50384/s.html

I have switched to Postgres a while back, but am not closed to the idea returning to MySQL in the future, however rycamor puts things into perspective very well.

-b

IMHO it'll take at least two years!

Until MySQL has a procedural language AND triggers it will always be lacking, no matter what other features it introduces.

My humble apologies for overstepping and overstating my opionions to both pabloj and Rod K. MySQL is indeed lacking several features and functionality that Postgres currently has.
...
My intention was to merely supply informational reading to those who may be new to the MySQL world and what it currently has to offer and what it plans on offering.
...
I am NOT an agent against any 'OPEN SOURCE' movement.
...
Knowlege and smiles.

Victor, I'm sorry if you feel insulted. I've been a long time defender of MySQL as well. MySQL has it's place. I'm currently using MySQL for high select, low insert/update applications such as a translation dictionary, and also for it's superior fulltext indexing. MySQL might be quite capable fulfilling chris' needs.

However, the capabilities of Postgres far exceed those of MySQL. It was quite wrong of you to discount the difference when hedge suggested Postgres as an alternative. The "vapor-ware" announcement by MySQL AB of subselect support is hardly worthy of saying that the feature set differential is being "reduced".

Wise words. I appreciate them. My intent was to not discount any statement made on this forum. I will be careful in the future with how I 'sling' other's proganda around like a preacher in the pulpit.
...