3 ms·

>> MySQL is equally easy to get running, and has FAR less maintenance overhead None of these ring true for me. >> It also scales better on its own, due to a t

>> MySQL is equally easy to get running, and has FAR less maintenance overhead None of these ring true for me. >> It also scales better on its own, due to a threaded connection model vs. Postgres’ process model. My understanding is that Postgres has an excellent SMP design that gives almost linear vertical scale. Couldn't quickly find good backup docs. >> FAR less maintenance overhead What do you mean by "maintenance overhead"? I don't find Postgres needs much maintenance let along FAR less.

sgarland 2y ago
> None of these ring true for me. In what way? > What do you mean by "maintenance overhead"? I don't find Postgres needs much maintenance let along FAR less. At small scale, you likely won’t notice. Once your tables get up to 10s or 100s of millions of rows, you will. Autovacuum will need tuning, both globally and per-table. Indices will need periodic re-indexing. Specific columns in tables may need custom statistics targets. TXID wraparound, though this isn’t so much maintenance as it is a waking nightmare that you have to monitor for. Don’t get me wrong, I quite like Postgres. However, IME from having ran large-ish (10s of TB) clusters of both, MySQL tends to Just Work.