Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0

On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 08:14:37AM -0700, John Wang wrote:
> On 10/28/06, Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith(at)pooteeweet(dot)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(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)