Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0 - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy
From | Jim C. Nasby |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0 |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20061109082908.GO90133@nasby.net Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0 ("John Wang" <johncwang@gmail.com>) |
List | pgsql-advocacy |
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 08:14:37AM -0700, John Wang wrote: > On 10/28/06, Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith@pooteeweet.org> wrote: > > > >The problem is that MySQL has gotten to many case studies with press > >coverage, that people start to think that MySQL is the better database > >product regardless if you have a DBA or not. And this is something that > >can only be countered with similar press coverage. Like every web > >developer needs to know that SourceForge runs on PostgreSQL eventhough > >they could be running on DB2 if they wanted to. > > > Regardless of how large scale Web 2.0 sites started using databases, by the > time they get to that scale and are giving presentations at OSCON, they are > using InnoDB and recommending it. They also recommend MyISAM for specific > cases where integrity isn't needed as much giving the impression MySQL is > more flexible, offering you integrity when you need it and additional speed > when you don't. Because these sites are talking about how they scaled, there > is simply more information on using MySQL in those situations in the wild > than Pg. For example, LiveJournal talks about how they use a multi-master > MySQL configuration, composite primary keys, clustering user data based on > composite PK and compsite key vs. GUID size. I think it would be great for > Pg DBAs at high profile sites to discuss similar things they did to scale > Pg, even if they didn't have to do anything to that extent (so people know > it can scale w/o additional effort). For new sites just starting, MySQL may > seem safer because there is simply more information available. The Apress > "Pro MySQL" book also exists now for those that wish to tune their MySQL > databases more. > > So perhaps the issue isn't comparing against MySQL directly but showing that > Pg is used and how it is used in situations where only MySQL typically gets > press. However, for a Sourceforge presentation, I think it would be nice if > they at least briefly mentioned why they did not choose MySQL because both > are OSS and they are an OSS shop. It's interesting that you mention LJ, because I've done some back-of-the-envelop calculations that showed that (at least as of about a year ago), they could have run their entire operation off of a single slony master and a few (2-3) slaves. At that time they were running over a dozen clusters in what appeared to be a pretty kludgey setup that was certainly prone to outages. To be honest, I don't think most people that choose MySQL even think about scalability; I think they just use it because it's what everyone else uses. -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
pgsql-advocacy by date: