| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sandeep Srinivasa <sss(at)clearsenses(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why facebook used mysql ? |
| Date: | 2010-11-09 12:50:37 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=XvfbFKQ2kRNOorxf9M4ZD60DqQWFkpe6XMir3@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Sandeep Srinivasa <sss(at)clearsenses(dot)com> wrote:
> There was an interesting post today on highscalability
> - http://highscalability.com/blog/2010/11/4/facebook-at-13-million-queries-per-second-recommends-minimiz.html
> The discussion/comments touched upon why mysql is a better idea for Facebook
> than Postgres. Here's an interesting one
postgresql might not be a good fit for this type of application, but
the reasoning given in the article is really suspicious. The true
answer was hinted at in the comments: "we chose it first, and there
was never a reason to change it". It really comes down to they
probably don't need much from the database other than a distributed
key value store, and they built a big software layer on top of that to
manage it. Hm, I use facebook and I've seen tons of inconsistent
answers, missing notifications and such. I wonder if there's a
connection there...
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthieu Huin | 2010-11-09 13:38:56 | Re: temporary table as a subset of an existing table and indexes |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2010-11-09 12:13:00 | Looking for PostgreSQL Folks in New Orleans area |