Re: High traffic websites...

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: High traffic websites...
Date: 2005-04-01 03:29:31
Message-ID: 200503312229.31187.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On Thursday 31 March 2005 17:57, Simon Riggs wrote:
> 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.
>

Hey I'd be happy with a site the employed several postgresql databases to
handle its various subdomains. Even better would be one that used slony to
handle extremely high read only traffic... nothing wrong with that.

> 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.
>

I think that's an arguable position... look at apache. I'd be willing to say
it's the cheapest and is *better* than the most expensive.

> 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...
>

I think your wrong on that... people want to know if X brand database can
handle high traffic websites... if you can say "we power amazon" or "we power
yahoo" then I think that satisfies *a lot* of people. Maybe not all but
certainly a good number, so I don't think there is anything wrong with trying
to find some shining examples that we can point to.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message simon 2005-04-01 11:28:02 Looks like Redmond's taking the commercial threat of PostgreSQL very, very seriously....
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2005-04-01 02:27:46 Re: High traffic websites...