4 ms·

can you elaborate on the in-memory capabilities you mention? My google searches aren't yielding anything.

• j_s 9y ago
  https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/memory-storage-engine.html https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/memory-storage-engin... https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10692398/how-do-i-make-a-mysql-database-run-completely-in-memory https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10692398/how-do-i-make-a... https://www.google.com/search?q=mysql+in-memory https://www.google.com/search?q=mysql+in-memory maybe?
  • netcraft 9y ago
    I'm aware of the memory capabilities of mysql in general, but the insinuation was that mysql had more capabilities of in-memory processing than postgres - I dont see anything in those links that are things that postgres cant do - although they may be implemented differently.
    • haimez 9y ago
      The honest answer is that you can get the desired result with Postgres, even if it might require a custom foreign data wrapper implementation. Carpenters pick their favorite saws, and they like MySQL. To be fair, uber did get burned by a Postgres replication failure- but they also had a NOC team promote 3 bad replicas to primary before stepping back to reconsider their approach. Carpenters do hate losing their fingers in circular saws.
    • riku_iki 9y ago
      It is simple, MySql has in-memory storage, and PSQL doesn't: all updates for your table are forced to be synced to the disk, which kills performance.