5 ms·

They used a DRBD replicated MySQL. Wonder why they used MySQL over PostgresSQL then.. Would be great to know if they looked that up aswell.

by merb 10y ago

setheron 10y ago
What does DRBD have to do with MySQL vs PostgresSQL ? DRBD is just block device replication
- merb 10y ago
  Actually you could do DRBD with PostgreSQL, too. There is a Master-Master Replication with MySQL that PostgreSQL don't has, but since they didn't used that it would be great to hear we they've choosen MySQL over PostgreSQL. Would be great if they would share that, too.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - gaius 10y ago
    DRBD and what database you use are orthogonal surely?
    - ecnahc515 10y ago
      The usage of DRDB somewhat eliminates the need for built in master/master replication, since its handled at the block layer. The two disks are always in sync, thus you don't need mysql's master/master setup. One of the main features missing from Postgres is that feature. Since it's not being used in their Mysql setup many people might ask why they wouldn't just use Postgres.
- gdulli 10y ago
  I think it's just a reflex for (ex-MySQL) Postgres users to ask that anytime they see someone using MySQL. If you have significant experience with both you know the quality of life is different between the two.
  - merb 10y ago
    Actually I never used MySQL really. But sometimes it's great to know why decisions are made. Actually I don't think they said, "well lets use MySQL over Oracle" especially since MySQL is a Oracle product, too. There would've been a way to use MariaDB aswell. And I guess anything with license costs fall out already (they explained why in the article). Edit: My guess would be that they still keep galera in mind, but since they didn't shared they why, one could only guess. And Transaction Wraparound maybe.
    - rimantas 10y ago
      MySQL had useable replication years beofre PG. Maybe that's why.
    - beachstartup 10y ago
      it's probably because they still had oracle software and support contracts in place, and in-house knowledge of mysql.
  - bpicolo 10y ago
    Really? Because Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, and Google all have stake in the MySQL ring (google least so). MySQL has a lot of good knowns at scale, too.
    - gdulli 10y ago
      All companies old enough to have a lot of legacy infrastructure from before it was common knowledge that Postgres is better. It would be more curious why MySQL would be adopted today than 10-15 years ago.
      - bpicolo 10y ago
        MySQL is insanely performant for simple primary key lookups, and has a lot of good knowns. It also has fewer tripups for things like vacuuming, (pretty much requiring) pgbouncer, pgbouncer pooling settings... If you're doing things with replication logs, mysql replication logs are a heck of a lot simpler, and there's more tooling for them in the OSS world That said, I do use postgres a lot :)
yeukhon 10y ago
The interesting thing is cross-region read replication has existed for MySQL since in 2013, whereas cross-region read replication for PG has been out a few days out officially. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/cross-region-read-replicas-for-amazon-rds-for-mysql/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/cross-region-read-replicas-... https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2016/06/amazon-rds-for-postgresql-now-supports-cross-region-read-replicas/ https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2016/06/amazon-rd... I am interested in non-read replica replication...
frik 10y ago
In the last 15 years every news (on /. and HN) that mentions MySQL is interrupted with such questions from Postgres fanboys. How about: MySQL is the very best solution for such tasks and Postgres isn't the universal holy grail? Wouldn't it be better to try to convert people over from (Postgres direct competitors) MSSQL, OracleDB, DB2 to Postgres?
- deathanatos 10y ago
  Frankly, no; I've used all of Postgres, MySQL, MSSQL, and SQLite, and MySQL is the worst of the lot. No, PostgreSQL isn't a holy grain, but any user of MySQL would overall be better served by PostgreSQL; especially on AWS where the replication is so simple to set up, which IMO is the only good argument I've heard in favor of MySQL (but I hear even that is fraught with peril). MySQL is so completely riddled with bugs and utterly baffling behavior — it is the PHP of relational DBs. What I remember off the top of my head includes attempting to subtract datetimes causing the punctuation to be removed from the datetimes and the resulting "integers" to be subtracted, FK integrity being violated in a number of easy-to-hit corner cases, the "utf8" encoding not being able to encode UTF-8 (and the default being latin1…), GROUP BY allowing obviously (i.e., catchable to the parser) broken queries, `SELECT * FROM table` on <10k row tables taking minutes in some cases, the SQL dialect swapping the words "key" and "index" inappropriately; Read [1] if you want more. Thus far the only other tool I've seen come close to this level of insanity is MongoDB. The thing about a tool so willfully discards any sort of reasoned approach to its topic area is that the people who use it — who inevitably are not well versed in how a relational database works "in theory" — cannot derive from its behavior its rules, because its behavior is irrational, bordering on psychotic, and the people using it tweak query after query while having no understanding of why one query might work better until some abomination that someone usually works is crafted; `-- Don't touch`. A good tool — I believe, somewhere deep inside me — will teach the novice user. MySQL will not; it will drive you insane. [1]: http://grimoire.ca/mysql/choose-something-else http://grimoire.ca/mysql/choose-something-else
  - Matt3o12_ 10y ago
    It should be noted that most Database supported by cloud providers are actually MySQL (compatible) database. While Amazon supports a managed Postgres Database as well, I would bet that their own MySQL database – Amazon Aurora – works best because it integrated best into the AWS eco system. Same goes for Google, unlike Amazon, the only managed Database they offer is a MySQL database (called Cloud SQL). I'm not disagreeing with your arguments (quite the opposite in fact), but that might be an important point to use MySQL over Postgres.

They used a DRBD replicated MySQL. Wonder why they used MySQL over PostgresSQL then.. Would be great to know if they looked that up aswell.

by merb 10y ago

They used a DRBD replicated MySQL. Wonder why they used MySQL over PostgresSQL then.. Would be great to know if they looked that up aswell.

setheron 10y ago

What does DRBD have to do with MySQL vs PostgresSQL ? DRBD is just block device replication

merb 10y ago
Actually you could do DRBD with PostgreSQL, too. There is a Master-Master Replication with MySQL that PostgreSQL don't has, but since they didn't used that it would be great to hear we they've choosen MySQL over PostgreSQL. Would be great if they would share that, too.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- gaius 10y ago
  DRBD and what database you use are orthogonal surely?
  - ecnahc515 10y ago
    The usage of DRDB somewhat eliminates the need for built in master/master replication, since its handled at the block layer. The two disks are always in sync, thus you don't need mysql's master/master setup. One of the main features missing from Postgres is that feature. Since it's not being used in their Mysql setup many people might ask why they wouldn't just use Postgres.
gdulli 10y ago
I think it's just a reflex for (ex-MySQL) Postgres users to ask that anytime they see someone using MySQL. If you have significant experience with both you know the quality of life is different between the two.
- merb 10y ago
  Actually I never used MySQL really. But sometimes it's great to know why decisions are made. Actually I don't think they said, "well lets use MySQL over Oracle" especially since MySQL is a Oracle product, too. There would've been a way to use MariaDB aswell. And I guess anything with license costs fall out already (they explained why in the article). Edit: My guess would be that they still keep galera in mind, but since they didn't shared they why, one could only guess. And Transaction Wraparound maybe.
  - rimantas 10y ago
    MySQL had useable replication years beofre PG. Maybe that's why.
  - beachstartup 10y ago
    it's probably because they still had oracle software and support contracts in place, and in-house knowledge of mysql.
- bpicolo 10y ago
  Really? Because Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, and Google all have stake in the MySQL ring (google least so). MySQL has a lot of good knowns at scale, too.
  - gdulli 10y ago
    All companies old enough to have a lot of legacy infrastructure from before it was common knowledge that Postgres is better. It would be more curious why MySQL would be adopted today than 10-15 years ago.
    - bpicolo 10y ago
      MySQL is insanely performant for simple primary key lookups, and has a lot of good knowns. It also has fewer tripups for things like vacuuming, (pretty much requiring) pgbouncer, pgbouncer pooling settings... If you're doing things with replication logs, mysql replication logs are a heck of a lot simpler, and there's more tooling for them in the OSS world That said, I do use postgres a lot :)

yeukhon 10y ago

The interesting thing is cross-region read replication has existed for MySQL since in 2013, whereas cross-region read replication for PG has been out a few days out officially. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/cross-region-read-replicas-for-amazon-rds-for-mysql/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/cross-region-read-replicas-... https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2016/06/amazon-rds-for-postgresql-now-supports-cross-region-read-replicas/ https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2016/06/amazon-rd... I am interested in non-read replica replication...

frik 10y ago

In the last 15 years every news (on /. and HN) that mentions MySQL is interrupted with such questions from Postgres fanboys. How about: MySQL is the very best solution for such tasks and Postgres isn't the universal holy grail? Wouldn't it be better to try to convert people over from (Postgres direct competitors) MSSQL, OracleDB, DB2 to Postgres?

deathanatos 10y ago
Frankly, no; I've used all of Postgres, MySQL, MSSQL, and SQLite, and MySQL is the worst of the lot. No, PostgreSQL isn't a holy grain, but any user of MySQL would overall be better served by PostgreSQL; especially on AWS where the replication is so simple to set up, which IMO is the only good argument I've heard in favor of MySQL (but I hear even that is fraught with peril). MySQL is so completely riddled with bugs and utterly baffling behavior — it is the PHP of relational DBs. What I remember off the top of my head includes attempting to subtract datetimes causing the punctuation to be removed from the datetimes and the resulting "integers" to be subtracted, FK integrity being violated in a number of easy-to-hit corner cases, the "utf8" encoding not being able to encode UTF-8 (and the default being latin1…), GROUP BY allowing obviously (i.e., catchable to the parser) broken queries, `SELECT * FROM table` on <10k row tables taking minutes in some cases, the SQL dialect swapping the words "key" and "index" inappropriately; Read [1] if you want more. Thus far the only other tool I've seen come close to this level of insanity is MongoDB. The thing about a tool so willfully discards any sort of reasoned approach to its topic area is that the people who use it — who inevitably are not well versed in how a relational database works "in theory" — cannot derive from its behavior its rules, because its behavior is irrational, bordering on psychotic, and the people using it tweak query after query while having no understanding of why one query might work better until some abomination that someone usually works is crafted; `-- Don't touch`. A good tool — I believe, somewhere deep inside me — will teach the novice user. MySQL will not; it will drive you insane. [1]: http://grimoire.ca/mysql/choose-something-else http://grimoire.ca/mysql/choose-something-else
- Matt3o12_ 10y ago
  It should be noted that most Database supported by cloud providers are actually MySQL (compatible) database. While Amazon supports a managed Postgres Database as well, I would bet that their own MySQL database – Amazon Aurora – works best because it integrated best into the AWS eco system. Same goes for Google, unlike Amazon, the only managed Database they offer is a MySQL database (called Cloud SQL). I'm not disagreeing with your arguments (quite the opposite in fact), but that might be an important point to use MySQL over Postgres.