I'll agree with Bill's response... If they dont want a rdbms what do
they want? If they know of something that scales better and is faster,
I'll bet they can make a lot of money. Lot of high traffic sites would
love to hear what they think.
> conventional wisdom seems to be that since obviously databases don't
> scale on the web,
Conventional? No, I don't think so. If you have 200 Gig of data,
what's going to search it faster than a rdbms?
If you have 200 Gig of data, with very intensive database queries, what
scales better than having one web server round-robin requests to 10
database servers?
I think the conventional wisdom is that non-database people cannot setup
a database to run quickly to save their life. And then blame the database.
-Andy
snacktime wrote:
> I'm working through the architecture design for a new product. We
> have a small group working on this. 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. I have a group
> of otherwise very bright people trying to convince me that a rdbms is
> not a good place to store relational data because eventually it won't
> scale. And of course we don't even have version 1 of our product out
> of the door. I'll admit we do have a very good chance of actually
> getting tons of traffic, but my position is to use a rdbms for
> relational data, and then if and when it won't scale any more, deal
> with it then.
>
> So what would really help me is some real world numbers on how
> postgresql is doing in the wild under pressure. If anyone cares to
> throw some out I would really appreciate it.
>
> Chris
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
