不，这并不重要。MySQL的速度大约是每秒700万行。所以你可以把它放大一点

物理数据库大小无关紧要。记录的数量并不重要。

In my experience the biggest problem that you are going to run in to is not size, but the number of queries you can handle at a time. Most likely you are going to have to move to a master/slave configuration so that the read queries can run against the slaves and the write queries run against the master. However if you are not ready for this yet, you can always tweak your indexes for the queries you are running to speed up the response times. Also there is a lot of tweaking you can do to the network stack and kernel in Linux that will help.

我的内存达到了10GB，只有中等数量的连接，它处理请求还不错。

我将首先关注您的索引，然后让服务器管理员查看您的操作系统，如果所有这些都没有帮助，那么可能是时候实现主/从配置了。

总的来说，这是一个非常微妙的问题，无论如何都不是微不足道的。我建议你阅读mysqlperformanceblog.com和高性能MySQL。我真的认为这个问题没有普遍的答案。

我正在做一个项目，它有一个MySQL数据库，几乎有1TB的数据。最重要的可伸缩性因素是RAM。如果您的表的索引适合内存，并且您的查询得到了高度优化，那么您可以使用普通机器处理合理数量的请求。

记录的数量确实很重要，这取决于表的外观。有很多varchar字段和只有几个int或long类型是有区别的。

数据库的物理大小也很重要:例如，考虑备份。根据你的引擎，你的物理db文件会增长，但不会缩小，例如innodb。因此，删除大量的行，并不有助于缩小您的物理文件。

这个问题有很多，在很多情况下，细节决定成败。

还要注意复杂连接。除了交易量之外，交易复杂性也是一个很大的因素。

重构繁重的查询有时会大大提高性能。

这取决于您的查询和验证。

例如，我处理过一个包含10万种药物的表格，表格中每个药物都有一个超过15个字符的列通用名。我输入了一个查询来比较两个表格之间药物的通用名。查询需要更多的时间来运行。同样，如果使用药物索引，使用id列(如上所述)比较药物，只需要几秒钟。

I'm currently managing a MySQL database on Amazon's cloud infrastructure that has grown to 160 GB. Query performance is fine. What has become a nightmare is backups, restores, adding slaves, or anything else that deals with the whole dataset, or even DDL on large tables. Getting a clean import of a dump file has become problematic. In order to make the process stable enough to automate, various choices needed to be made to prioritize stability over performance. If we ever had to recover from a disaster using a SQL backup, we'd be down for days.

Horizontally scaling SQL is also pretty painful, and in most cases leads to using it in ways you probably did not intend when you chose to put your data in SQL in the first place. Shards, read slaves, multi-master, et al, they are all really shitty solutions that add complexity to everything you ever do with the DB, and not one of them solves the problem; only mitigates it in some ways. I would strongly suggest looking at moving some of your data out of MySQL (or really any SQL) when you start approaching a dataset of a size where these types of things become an issue.

更新:几年后，我们的数据集已经增长到大约800 GiB。此外，我们还有一个200+ GiB的表和其他一些50-100 GiB的表。我之前说的都成立。它的性能仍然很好，但运行完整数据集操作的问题变得更糟了。