5 ms·
Except they didn't choose mysql -- they chose Percona. Bonus of going with Percona is that in the process you get a fantastic company to back you up.
by trimbo 14y ago
Except they didn't choose mysql -- they chose Percona. Bonus of going with Percona is that in the process you get a fantastic company to back you up.
- moe 14y agoA "fantastic" company and a crappy database. Sounds like a questionable set of priorities.
- JoachimSchipper 14y agoI don't like MySQL either, but they're basically using it as a networked hash table. It's not so bad that it can't do that.
- spudlyo 14y agoThis is InnoDB's sweet spot really -- a mostly read-only in memory data set where the lookups are done primarily by PK. MySQL 5.5 can scale this kind of workload to 32 cores. I'm pretty sure given this kind of workload MySQL will outperform PostgreSQL handily.
- papsosouid 14y agoWhy do you say this like it is impressive? Postgresql will scale to 32 cores with a real workload, and has done so for a few years. Mysql performance still tanks at 8 cores. It is very unlikely that mysql will be able to match postgresql for this workload, much less outperform it "handily".
- spudlyo 14y agoPostgresql will scale to 32 cores with a real workload, and has done so for a few years. Mysql performance still tanks at 8 cores. Both of those statements are not accurate, but hey, what's it matter? Without benchmarks we're both talking out our ass anyway.
- moe 14y agoThe postgres part of the statement is accurate; http://rhaas.blogspot.de/2012/04/did-i-say-32-cores-how-about-64.html http://rhaas.blogspot.de/2012/04/did-i-say-32-cores-how-abou...
- spudlyo 14y agoNo, it's not. The referenced article is talking about Postgres 9.2devel. Version 9.2 isn't out yet, and even if it was, it still wouldn't be true due to the clause "and has done so for a few years". The lock manager bottlenecks that stopped PG from using more than 60% of the cpu power on a 24 core box were discovered a little less than a year ago. http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2011/07/read-scaling-out-to-32-cores.html http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2011/07/read-scaling-out-to-32-cor...
- papsosouid 14y agoYou are making assumptions about one scenario based on limitations encountered in a very different scenario. The problems that occur around 24 cores occur on benchmarks consisting entirely of select statements against a single table. As I said, postgresql has scaled to 32 cores for real workloads for a few years. Real workloads have more than one table. See here for an example of mysql having problems at only 8 cores (and postgresql destroying mysql's performance): http://www.scribd.com/doc/551889/Introducing-Freebsd-70 http://www.scribd.com/doc/551889/Introducing-Freebsd-70 Postgresql scaling to 28 cores in 2007: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:-ytn3fY_Lr8J:www.pgcon.org/2007/schedule/attachments/22-Scaling%2520PostgreSQL%2520on%2520SMP%2520Architectures%2520--%2520An%2520Update+postgresql+32+cpu&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESixa00UkghJF8p1l9rfkwt56Cf4E3ZJHXSm3DIAciCB-7jEOc9LWWfyq9RXBb81JdCim3MxSV3RnVav7UnJuv8Oap4xspQBak9_DmWXT7t3kZjA9t-TB_HG96eVsyn-P5blyize&sig=AHIEtbRAXnaktHnXerUe-LXHJL86KxBtOw https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:-ytn3fY_Lr8J:... Postgresql on 32 core t2000 being able to scale up to 1024 concurrent clients in 2008: http://www.pgcon.org/2008/schedule/attachments/50_46_pgcon2008_problem.pdf http://www.pgcon.org/2008/schedule/attachments/50_46_pgcon20...
- 14y ago
- jeltz 14y agoAnd PostgreSQL 9.2 will be able to scale this workload linearly to 64 cores. So while MySQL may or may not win it will certainly not "outperform PostgreSQL handily". http://rhaas.blogspot.se/2012/04/did-i-say-32-cores-how-about-64.html http://rhaas.blogspot.se/2012/04/did-i-say-32-cores-how-abou...
- spudlyo 14y agoThe key is that PostgreSQL 9.2 will be able to handle a 64 core workload, but current released versions of PG do not. The fact is current versions of PG are unable to use more than 60% CPU on a 24 core machine. Do you know anyone who uses a dev version of an RDBMS in production? http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/BANLkTimVboKxzGS9BhL7XphBCr4iy-s0BQ@mail.gmail.com http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/BANLkTimVboKxzGS9B...
- jeltz 14y agoI believe that MySQL 5.5 scales to 32 cores but not linearly, while PostgreSQL 9.1 caps at 24 cores. As I said in my last comment: I do not doubt much that MySQL would beat PostgreSQL 9.1, but it wont beat it "handily".
- sk5t 14y agoMicrosoft's Extensible Storage Engine (ESE) will also do an extremely fine job at this, and much more.
- scubaguy 14y agoThe author mentioned one of the reasons for choose MySQL is that they are familiar with MySQL. They could've went with PostgreSQL and EnterpriseDB, also a great company. It's not like you can't get commercial support with PostgreSQL.