| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: High traffic websites... |
| Date: | 2005-03-31 22:57:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1112309821.16721.504.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 15:30 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> I'm sure that a lot of you saw the article on /. a couple days ago about
> "PostgreSQL on big sites?", where someone asked for a list of high
> traffic websites that are using PostgreSQL on the backend.
My penny contribution...
Show me a list of high traffic websites that use only one
server/subdomain for all of the connected pages. All of them I know of
use many subdomains and almost all use many different systems on each,
so its a strange question, designed mostly to attack. All multi-sites
have a range of traffic levels on various applications that make up
their sites. Many of these are RDBMS connected, many are not. Google
sure as hell doesn't use any RDBMS.
No wish to start a flamewar, but I am content in the thought that
PostgreSQL can't do the top slice of performance requirements that
exist. How big is that slice? Thats the point for debate, for me. There
isn't any market anywhere with more than 1 player in, where the cheapest
is as good as the most expensive; thats economics.
You'll never please the people who want to see "Big", "More" etc
references and proof. I am interested in talking to people who want
"Enough", "Sufficient" and "Cost/Effective"; that is sufficient for
me...
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-04-01 02:27:46 | Re: High traffic websites... |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2005-03-31 21:50:47 | Re: High traffic websites... |