4 ms·

Came here to say the same. It makes sense that older companies are locked into their database as migrating would be too difficult like Facebook. I though Pinter

Came here to say the same. It makes sense that older companies are locked into their database as migrating would be too difficult like Facebook. I though Pinterest was a relatively young company and I'm surprised it chose mysql. Instagram is build on top of postgres and was founded in 2010, pinterest was founded in 2009.

taf2 11y ago
Other than Oracle being a part of the equation MySQL is still an open source database and too quote the article: "Aside: I still recommend startups avoid the fancy new stuff — try really hard to just use MySQL. Trust me. I have the scars to prove it." In many ways, Postgres is cutting edge with it's features and capabilities. I see lots of updates from Postgres that include new SQL features (json objects) - conversely I see lots of updates from MySQL that are about durability and scalability e.g. (galera cluster, percona updates etc...) From the use case Pinterest exposed in the article, I'm not sure what the additional features of Postgres would actually buy them?
- techman9 11y ago
  JSON object storage for one? I'm a little confused as to why their schema relies on storing JSON data as a TEXT field in MySQL. I don't believe this is technically incorrect, but seems to negate many of the features of relational database design. Why not just store each entry as either a traditional column or use a solution that enables native JSON storage.
  - mappu 11y ago
    >Why not just store each entry as either a traditional column Slow ALTER >or use a solution that enables native JSON storage This would help if you needed to select or join on the individual columns, but if Pinterest don't need to do that, then this falls under the "avoid the fancy new stuff" quote from the article.
    - techman9 11y ago
      > Slow ALTER In practice, how often do schema migrations take place though?
      - mappu 11y ago
        Looking over the source history at $DAYJOB, we run a migration containing DDL statements on average every two days. Mostly for adding new features on small(er) metadata tables where the ALTER doesn't hurt - but occasionally on our bigger XX-GB log tables, where it takes all morning.
- forkerenok 11y ago
  Well, that's exactly the thing about Postgres. It is not stuck in the stone age, yet extremely reliable. Having worked with a number of MySQL (main fork) and Postgres installations in the past 7 years I observed a number of crashes and corruptions with MySQL (not counting the glory MyISAM days) while having _none_ with Postgres. I should confess that that experience made me very biased in favour of Postgres. My default thinking about Postgres now is: if it doesn't have something MySQL has, it is either for a reason or they are taking their time to do it the _right_ way.
rimantas 11y ago
I believe Facebook had enough talent capable to choose their DBs carefully. And I am pretty sure MySQL replication had a lot to do with it. As having people who already knew how to finetune MySQL for big loads. BTW, believe it or not, Wikipedia once run on Postgresql, but was later migrated to MySQL (and currently they use MariaDB).
- forkerenok 11y ago
  Proof-link? or lie. (pg fanboy here)
  - e12e 11y ago
    I'd also like to see a reference to wikipedia running on postgresql. The mediawiki software platform supports running on postgresql[1] -- but it appears the wikipedia has been running on MySQL prior to migrating to MariaDB: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/22/wikipedia-adopts-mariadb/ http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/22/wikipedia-adopts-mariad... [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:PostgreSQL https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:PostgreSQL

taf2 11y ago

Other than Oracle being a part of the equation MySQL is still an open source database and too quote the article: "Aside: I still recommend startups avoid the fancy new stuff — try really hard to just use MySQL. Trust me. I have the scars to prove it." In many ways, Postgres is cutting edge with it's features and capabilities. I see lots of updates from Postgres that include new SQL features (json objects) - conversely I see lots of updates from MySQL that are about durability and scalability e.g. (galera cluster, percona updates etc...) From the use case Pinterest exposed in the article, I'm not sure what the additional features of Postgres would actually buy them?

techman9 11y ago
JSON object storage for one? I'm a little confused as to why their schema relies on storing JSON data as a TEXT field in MySQL. I don't believe this is technically incorrect, but seems to negate many of the features of relational database design. Why not just store each entry as either a traditional column or use a solution that enables native JSON storage.
- mappu 11y ago
  >Why not just store each entry as either a traditional column Slow ALTER >or use a solution that enables native JSON storage This would help if you needed to select or join on the individual columns, but if Pinterest don't need to do that, then this falls under the "avoid the fancy new stuff" quote from the article.
  - techman9 11y ago
    > Slow ALTER In practice, how often do schema migrations take place though?
    - mappu 11y ago
      Looking over the source history at $DAYJOB, we run a migration containing DDL statements on average every two days. Mostly for adding new features on small(er) metadata tables where the ALTER doesn't hurt - but occasionally on our bigger XX-GB log tables, where it takes all morning.
forkerenok 11y ago
Well, that's exactly the thing about Postgres. It is not stuck in the stone age, yet extremely reliable. Having worked with a number of MySQL (main fork) and Postgres installations in the past 7 years I observed a number of crashes and corruptions with MySQL (not counting the glory MyISAM days) while having _none_ with Postgres. I should confess that that experience made me very biased in favour of Postgres. My default thinking about Postgres now is: if it doesn't have something MySQL has, it is either for a reason or they are taking their time to do it the _right_ way.

rimantas 11y ago

I believe Facebook had enough talent capable to choose their DBs carefully. And I am pretty sure MySQL replication had a lot to do with it. As having people who already knew how to finetune MySQL for big loads. BTW, believe it or not, Wikipedia once run on Postgresql, but was later migrated to MySQL (and currently they use MariaDB).

forkerenok 11y ago
Proof-link? or lie. (pg fanboy here)
- e12e 11y ago
  I'd also like to see a reference to wikipedia running on postgresql. The mediawiki software platform supports running on postgresql[1] -- but it appears the wikipedia has been running on MySQL prior to migrating to MariaDB: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/22/wikipedia-adopts-mariadb/ http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/22/wikipedia-adopts-mariad... [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:PostgreSQL https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:PostgreSQL