Re: Why facebook used mysql ?

2010/11/9 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)killerbytes(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Also, my understanding is that if you go way back on the PostgreSQL timeline to versions 6 and earliest 7.x, it was a little shaky. (I started with 7.3 or 7.4, and it has been rock solid.)
>
>> In those same times, mysql was also, um, other than rock solid.
>
> I don't have enough operational experience with mysql to speak to how
> reliable it was back in the day.  What it *did* have over postgres back
> then was speed.  It was a whole lot faster, particularly on the sort of
> single-stream-of-simple-queries cases that people who don't know
> databases are likely to set up as benchmarks.  (mysql still beats us on
> cases like that, though not by as much.)  I think that drove quite a
> few early adoption decisions, and now folks are locked in; the cost of
> conversion outweighs the (perceived) benefits.

Facebook have writen "Flashcache [is] built primarily as a block
cache for InnoDB but is general purpose and can be used by other
applications as well."

https://github.com/facebook/flashcache/

A good tool by the way. It is the only place where I like to see SSD
disk. (not at facebook, but with 'volatile' data)

>
>                        regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>

--
Cédric Villemain               2ndQuadrant
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support