On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, snacktime wrote:
> It's a web app that will be using ruby on rails. The challenge I'm
> running into is that the latest conventional wisdom seems to be that
> since obviously databases don't scale on the web, you should just not
> use them at all.
Those who don't use a DBMS to store data are doomed to reinvent one,
poorly.
Ruby On Rails makes some design trade-offs that can make scaling a large
database driven installation challenging. An article that greatly
popularized the issues involved is the interview at
http://www.radicalbehavior.com/5-question-interview-with-twitter-developer-alex-payne/
There are a variety of workarounds for this though. Some people use
memcached http://www.danga.com/memcached/ in various ways to reduce the
work the database handles directly. There are Ruby-based approaches like
http://magicmodels.rubyforge.org/magic_multi_connections/ that let you use
a database cluster to scale higher.
On the PostgreSQL side, programs like PgBouncer let you reduce
database-related overhead when it's the sheer number of physical
connections dragging performance down
https://developer.skype.com/SkypeGarage/DbProjects/PgBouncer
The thing to observe here is that even should the database itself turn
into a scaling bottleneck, there are several clever solutions that let you
keep the good things about a proper RDBMS while providing higher
throughput for the specific demands of the web application environment.
Accordingly, focusing on the raw performance of PostgreSQL is kind of
misleading. You shouldn't have to hit the database for everything if you
put the right kind of layer on top.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
