On Sunday 30 April 2006 12:01, Tony Lausin wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm working on a CMS which requires an open source database capable of
> handling hundreds of thousands of users simultaneously, with a high
> rate of database writes, and without buckling. We're talking somewhere
> between nerve.com/catch27.com and xanga.com/friendster.com
>
> PostgreSQL is a personal favorite of mine, and my gut instinct is that
> it's the best choice for a large scale CMS serving many users;
> however, I'm getting antsy. I keep getting suggestions that Postgres
> is really only suited to small and medium projects, and that I should
> be looking at MySQL for a large scale database drive site. I'm not
> really a fan of MySQL, but I'll consider it if it truly is the better
> choice in this case. I just don't understand how it would be. I'm
> thinking this is solely in reference to VACUUM. Even with autovacuum
> suport, I tend to agree there is at least one handicap.
>
> I could really use some enlightenment on just where PostgreSQL fits in
> a single-server, highly-trafficked web site serving mostly text,
> pictures and possibly streaming media.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony
>
Very odd. I had always heard that MySql (at least originally) was a
"quick and dirty" database, easy to use, not fully standards compliant,
and not enterprise grade. Postgresql on the other hand was always
the heavyweight, standards compliant, enterprise db, which was more
difficult to use and set up but much more resilient. Postgresql has been
getting more UI support (often seen as a user friendly bonus) and
things like autovacuum support so that it is easier to use out of the box,
and MySql has been gaining standards compliance and resilience.
Funny how perceptions can differ.
David
