[lmarcos]

Silly question: they have 5.7TB in their database... How come? It's a dating app founded in 2012, I can understand that one can accumulate such much data in 11 years, but sure you can periodically archive "unused" data and move it out of your primary database, right? I mean, are the 5.7TB of data actually needed in a daily basis by their app?

(I assume data for analytical purposes is not stored in their primary DB, which is fair to assume I believe)

[YuriNiyazov]

As someone who manages an order of magnitude greater database than that for an app founded in 2008 (and that's after multiple archivings of unused data, and no severe crimes like storing image blobs in the DB), I can tell you that, uhm, Coffee Meets Bagel is either not that successful, or is doing a very good job at managing their DB size.

[jamesmishra]

5.7 TB is small by database standards. I work at a much smaller company and deal with "proportionally" much more data.

I don't know if it would be worth the engineering effort to try and archive old data in a way that still makes it transparently accessible to users that go looking for it--especially when modern databases ought to be able to scale up and out without manual archiving.

[arcticfox]

5.7 TB for an OLTP database is small?! I must be living in a different world. Obviously I know you can go that big, but I thought the number of use-cases would be limited.

[lumost]

Why does my browser routinely eat 8GB while it used to only require 32MB 25 years ago? because it can. Web services likewise come up with features and data to fill databases.

For $8/hr you can rent a DB with 500 GB of memory and 64 cores, complete with redundancy, automated backups, and failover. For the hourly rate of an oracle consultant you can rent a DB with 2TB of memory for the day.

Bear in mind that many of these workloads are trivially shardable (e.g. any table keyed off customer ID) and can be scaled across hundreds of DBs as required.

[rossmohax]

If data is sharable, it doesn't mean that it is trivial. In your example with shards by user, simple message sent between users in app becomes are very non trivial dance to be done reliably.

[lumost]

If you recognize that there isn't a good automated solution for the DB to smartly join messages than it becomes a fairly straightforward problem once again.

e.g. the simple solution is to denormalize the table and have each message keyed by recipient. In a dating app you'll roughly double your message count this way, and even in most messenger apps the proportion of messages sent person to person is likely the most significant.

A smarter solution is to key each conversation by a unique key in a sharded table and then store the set of "conversations" that a user is engaged in in the sharded users table. Fetching the messages for a user then becomes a simple 2 query process - fetch/filter the conversations, then fetch the messages. No duplication of messages, and likely just a few extra bytes per message for the key.

It would be great if the DB could manage the above application side sharded join internally, but we're unfortunately a few steps away from that today.

[rossmohax]

It doesn't matter how you arrange data, the moment you need to commit to 2 shards transactionally you are either having consistency trouble or performance trouble.

Both your schemas require writes to at least 2 shards transactionally.

[KptMarchewa]

Then you don't do chats on your primary RDBMS.

[systems]

its huge by database standard, i worked in large multinationals and dealt with some of the their largest databases

5.7 is enormous by database standard , there is no way you can get good query performance on a 5.7 tb database without solid physical partitioning and heavily optimized queries, and most normal companies even with 200-500 GB database use datamarts to have good performance without a super complex architectures and geniuses working fro you in db admin department

the more i think about it, the more i think that 5.7 TB would be unusably huge, and if you have this much data, most wont even bother to partition, the db will be broken into several (hundreds) smaller databases

[derekperkins]

5TB is not that large and it's not that difficult to get good performance. We operated a 50TB single instance of MySQL for 5 years with a tiny team before migrating to Vitess, and it was basically zero maintenance. We did partition our largest table, which just requires a little extra SQL, but is otherwise transparent.

[throwdbaaway]

You guys are talking past each other, as your workloads appear to be different. With a traditional RDBMS, size usually wouldn't be a bottleneck, as long as you can add enough disks to a single server.

Write operations per second, that's the metric I would care about. A 50TB instance with low amount of write operations can be zero maintenance, while a 500GB instance with high amount of write operations can be a real pain.

[lopatin]

Thank you for validating my troubles with a write-heavy ~500GB db in the midst of a TB-measuring contest :)

[diziet]

Imagine there are 10m users. That's 600kb per user.

[mbyio]

And you have to account for indexes, temporary tables used for data analysis, etc. And most of it is probably not compressed. So with that perspective it isn't that much data at all.

[stickfigure]

That's an incredibly large amount per user? I have worked on a couple online dating sites, including one that was fairly popular (Let's Date - which stiffed me for my last invoice before they went belly up grrr). Unless you're storing images in the database, it's really hard to generate 600k for a dating workload - even with indexes.

The only thing I can imagine generating 600k per user is putting something like "hit tracking" in the database. Which I've done - yes it adds up - but it's also relatively easy to move to some other kind of store.

[curryst]

If messages between users go into their main database, then that would be a pretty reasonable amount.

[stickfigure]

600k is a sizable book. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is 600k. And that's the average per-user; most users will never send or receive messages.

The only thing I can imagine is that they do an incredible amount of activity tracking.

[mrweasel]

That's really a good way of looking at it. I though it sounded like a lot of data, well, 600kb is a lot of textual data, but who knows what they have stuffed into the database.

I worked for an e-commerce site, with a few million customers, even more orders, data-duplication all over the place, and still we where using a perhaps a 200GB of database storage.

[sharadov]

Not a lot, but there may be options to partition, but again, you can't comment unless you know the design.

[hermanradtke]

Agreed. I ran a 1 billion dollar GMV e-commerce company and our primary OLTP database was around 60 GB. Everything else was moved to an OLAP database.

[philipwhiuk2]

Purely at a guess, people's images are stored in the app as blobs because it's "easier"

[kevas]

What was the strategy for moving things over? By age? Monitoring queries and determining what data isn’t being queried? Something else?

[tommyzli]

Nope.

[jbverschoor]

Probably some excessive data hoarding of location information, and perhaps too much meta data for each request.

Anyways, seems more like a liability than an achievement

[wejick]

I think it's because they use Django and naturally it's a monolithic architecture. We will hardly find database this big in microservice world, instead there will be several smaller databases.

Now whether several smaller DBs is easier to manage compared to one big one, it would be debatable. However with that huge DB, I would prefer having several smaller one.