Re: postgresql vs mysql

On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 01:49:06PM +1300, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
> On 2/23/07, Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> wrote:
> >That depends greatly on what you're doing with it. Generally, as soon
> >as you start throwing a multi-user workload at it, MySQL stops
> >scaling. http://tweakers.net recently did a study on that.
> I think I recall that wikipedia uses MySQL ... they get quite a few
> hits, too, I believe.

And wikipedia has a massive distributed caching layer the spans the glob
(IIRC there's 128 cache machines).

I think a better example might be livejournal; the last time I ran the
numbers it should have been very reasonable to handle the entire update
load with a single database server and add slony slaves for read access
as needed. Instead they have a very, very complex system of spreading
user load across multiple clusters, etc. Because of that and mysql in
general, they've suffered a lot of pain and some lost data.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)