Re: Why facebook used mysql ?

Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)killerbytes(dot)com> wrote:
>> Also, my understanding is that if you go way back on the PostgreSQL timeline to versions 6 and earliest 7.x, it was a little shaky. (I started with 7.3 or 7.4, and it has been rock solid.)

> In those same times, mysql was also, um, other than rock solid.

I don't have enough operational experience with mysql to speak to how
reliable it was back in the day. What it *did* have over postgres back
then was speed. It was a whole lot faster, particularly on the sort of
single-stream-of-simple-queries cases that people who don't know
databases are likely to set up as benchmarks. (mysql still beats us on
cases like that, though not by as much.) I think that drove quite a
few early adoption decisions, and now folks are locked in; the cost of
conversion outweighs the (perceived) benefits.

regards, tom lane