diff --git a/misc/PartioningVsSharding.md b/misc/PartioningVsSharding.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..aa80d12 --- /dev/null +++ b/misc/PartioningVsSharding.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +# Partitioning Vs Sharding + +Both sharding and partitioning are techniques used to manage large databases, but they differ in how they distribute the data: + +**Sharding** + +- **Distribution:** Sharding splits the data horizontally across **multiple servers or nodes**. Each shard is a complete and independent subset of the data, containing its own copy of the table schema. +- **Scalability:** Sharding excels at horizontal scaling. As your data grows, you can simply add more servers to distribute the load. +- **Complexity:** Sharding introduces complexity in managing a distributed system. You need to handle routing queries to the appropriate shard and ensure data consistency across all shards. +- **Example:** Imagine a social media platform with sharded user data. Users from North America might be stored on one shard, while users from Europe reside on another. + +**Partitioning** + +- **Distribution:** Partitioning divides a **single table** horizontally within the same database server. Partitions are essentially sub-tables that hold specific subsets of the data based on a chosen criteria. +- **Performance:** Partitioning improves query performance by allowing you to quickly locate relevant data. Queries can target specific partitions, reducing the amount of data scanned. +- **Management:** Partitioning is easier to manage compared to sharding as everything remains within a single server. +- **Example:** An e-commerce website might partition its order table by year. Queries for past orders can then be directed to the appropriate year partition. + +**Here's a table summarizing the key differences:** + +| Feature | Sharding | Partitioning | +| ------------ | -------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | +| Distribution | Across multiple servers | Within a single server | +| Scalability | Excellent horizontal scaling | Limited by server capacity | +| Complexity | More complex (distributed system management) | Simpler management | +| Performance | Improved due to parallel processing | Improved for focused queries | +| Consistency | Maintaining consistency across shards can be challenging | Consistency is generally straightforward | + +**In conclusion:** + +- Use sharding for massive datasets requiring horizontal scalability and potentially high write volume. +- Use partitioning for improved query performance on large tables within a single server, especially when queries target specific subsets of data.