On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Sandeep Srinivasa <sss@clearsenses.com> wrote:
>> There was an interesting post today on highscalability
>> - http://highscalability.com/blog/2010/11/4/facebook-at-13-million-queries-per-second-recommends-minimiz.html
>> The discussion/comments touched upon why mysql is a better idea for Facebook
>> than Postgres. Here's an interesting one
>
> postgresql might not be a good fit for this type of application, but
> the reasoning given in the article is really suspicious. The true
> answer was hinted at in the comments: "we chose it first, and there
> was never a reason to change it". It really comes down to they
> probably don't need much from the database other than a distributed
> key value store, and they built a big software layer on top of that to
> manage it. Hm, I use facebook and I've seen tons of inconsistent
> answers, missing notifications and such. I wonder if there's a
> connection there...
>
> merlin
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
I agree with Merlin, There is a surprising big number of "good"
technology companies (including Google) out there using MySQL. For
sometime I have been wondering why and have come up with a few
(possibly wrong) theories. Such as: these companies are started by
application developers not database experts, the cost (effort) of
changing to other database engine is substantial given that that
probably there is already so much inconsistencies in their current
data setup coupled with considerable amount of inconsistency cover-up
code at the application programs, and maybe the IT team is doubling up
as a fire fighting department constantly putting out the data driven
fires. This is then compounded by the rapid increase in data.
Allan.
