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
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... |