Re: Why facebook used mysql ?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf > Of Tom Lane
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:55 AM
> To: Vick Khera
> Cc: Scott Ribe; Allan Kamau; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 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.

A different slant on this has to do with licensing and $$. Might Oracle decide some day to start charging for their new found DB? They are a for-profit company that's beholding to their shareholders LONG before an open software community. Consumers like Facebook and Google have deep pockets, something corporate executives really don't dismiss lightly.