Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: High traffic websites...

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 (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2005-04-01 02:27:46
Subject: Re: High traffic websites...
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2005-03-31 21:50:47
Subject: Re: High traffic websites...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group