7 ms·

Anyone else disappointed the post didn't go into all that much detail? Scaling databases is hard if you're not privileged enough to have access to large pools o

Anyone else disappointed the post didn't go into all that much detail? Scaling databases is hard if you're not privileged enough to have access to large pools of money to hire good DBA's. Interestingly, I would love to see companies like Github opening up their database schemas to the public with mock data. Scaling is one aspect, but the best thing you can do in the beginning is to create a solid schema (normalise, denormalise...) it would be interesting to see what Github uses and why. Still awesome to see MySQL being the choice most large companies like Github choose in the face of new and untested NoSQL databases like MongoDB.

seabrookmx 12y ago
> new and untested NoSQL databases MongoDB is new and untested? What rock do you live under? It is new compared to many of the veteran Relational databases like SQL Server (and I don't mean that in a bad way), but it is a proven technology used by many. See http://www.mongodb.com/who-uses-mongodb http://www.mongodb.com/who-uses-mongodb
- karlick88 12y ago
  Unfortunately, many of those who used mongodb regretted the decision Mongodb is a good db but it is not good for many use cases that people are using them for. There are a lot of companies that realized the mistake and are actively migrating off it. I know we are planning a "Off-Mongo party" with another company once we both manage to migrate off
  - threeseed 12y ago
    You are either being disingenuous or you're ignorant. Many of the companies that switched off MongoDB were growing and ended up moving up to databases like Cassandra. MongoDB is a great database from when you're starting to when you're mid sized. Cassandra destroys PostgreSQL in scalability but we don't say PostgreSQL is a crap database because of it.
    - kalleboo 12y ago
      What makes Cassandra unsuitable for starting to mid sized where MongoDB is better?
  - lucian1900 12y ago
    I think you're being too kind. Many of us who used MongoDB have concluded that there is no task at which it is in any way better than all other existing alternatives.
    - seabrookmx 12y ago
      That's a pretty bold statement. Care to enlighten?
  - seabrookmx 12y ago
    I agree that document-oriented databases don't deserve a lot of the hype they get (use the right tool for the job and all that), but there is definitely some use cases where they make sense. At my company most of our systems are SQL Server powered, but one of the newer systems that stores large blobs of metadata for products is using Mongo, and it is working quite well.
- ayrx 12y ago
  Calling it new and untested is a bit too much. It's probably more accurate to describe it as being tested and found unworthy for most use cases.
  - josephlord 12y ago
    MongoDB is web scale http://www.mongodb-is-web-scale.com http://www.mongodb-is-web-scale.com
    - kaeawc 12y ago
      That has so much win. Thank you.
calinet6 12y ago
Or better, more solid relational options like Postgres... Honestly, is there any reason to use MySQL over Postgres at this point? Or is it sort of six of one half a dozen of the other as long as the data model is decent?
- btown 12y ago
  MySQL historically had more support for HA/clustering than Postgres. Recently, there's been a lot of progress on integrating Postgres clustering into the core, to the point where it's mature, but perhaps not as battle-tested. Not a reason to choose MySQL for a startup, I think, but if you've got a cluster working on MySQL and a clear understanding of its pitfalls, there's no real reason to switch to Postgres.
  - calinet6 12y ago
    That makes sense, thanks. I guess as long as you have a reasonably optimized relational database of a given class, you're going to be about on the same order of magnitude of performance.
- markwatson 12y ago
  We chose MySQL where I work only because it's easier to hire people with a lot of MySQL knowledge. Technical reasons aren't the only ones when deciding what software/framework/libraries to use.
  - yangyang 12y ago
    That can work both ways though. Sometimes if you chose a less popular option it can make it easier to find outstanding candidates.
- vtal 12y ago
  1. Monitoring and administration tools for MySQL are (better?) more polished. 2. WAY easier to find MySQL DBA's vs. PG DBA's 3. More resources in general around MySQL. Whatever problem/issue you have it's out there already.
threeseed 12y ago
Scaling databases is EASY if you pick a database designed for it. I've personally managed Cassandra, HBase and Riak on 30+ node clusters for companies. Almost no issues. It shows how little you know about real world scalability when you actually suggest MySQL over something like Cassandra. It is a nightmare to scale unless you are sharding in your application layer.
- Xorlev 12y ago
  It can be easier, but saying it's ever easy belies the bevy of issues that can (and will) always crop up.
samlambert 12y ago
The problem with going into too much detail is that it can become a list of recommendations that might not even apply to different people's infrastructure. Most of the time MySQL optimization is workload specific.

seabrookmx 12y ago

> new and untested NoSQL databases MongoDB is new and untested? What rock do you live under? It is new compared to many of the veteran Relational databases like SQL Server (and I don't mean that in a bad way), but it is a proven technology used by many. See http://www.mongodb.com/who-uses-mongodb http://www.mongodb.com/who-uses-mongodb

karlick88 12y ago
Unfortunately, many of those who used mongodb regretted the decision Mongodb is a good db but it is not good for many use cases that people are using them for. There are a lot of companies that realized the mistake and are actively migrating off it. I know we are planning a "Off-Mongo party" with another company once we both manage to migrate off
- threeseed 12y ago
  You are either being disingenuous or you're ignorant. Many of the companies that switched off MongoDB were growing and ended up moving up to databases like Cassandra. MongoDB is a great database from when you're starting to when you're mid sized. Cassandra destroys PostgreSQL in scalability but we don't say PostgreSQL is a crap database because of it.
  - kalleboo 12y ago
    What makes Cassandra unsuitable for starting to mid sized where MongoDB is better?
- lucian1900 12y ago
  I think you're being too kind. Many of us who used MongoDB have concluded that there is no task at which it is in any way better than all other existing alternatives.
  - seabrookmx 12y ago
    That's a pretty bold statement. Care to enlighten?
- seabrookmx 12y ago
  I agree that document-oriented databases don't deserve a lot of the hype they get (use the right tool for the job and all that), but there is definitely some use cases where they make sense. At my company most of our systems are SQL Server powered, but one of the newer systems that stores large blobs of metadata for products is using Mongo, and it is working quite well.
ayrx 12y ago
Calling it new and untested is a bit too much. It's probably more accurate to describe it as being tested and found unworthy for most use cases.
- josephlord 12y ago
  MongoDB is web scale http://www.mongodb-is-web-scale.com http://www.mongodb-is-web-scale.com
  - kaeawc 12y ago
    That has so much win. Thank you.

calinet6 12y ago

Or better, more solid relational options like Postgres... Honestly, is there any reason to use MySQL over Postgres at this point? Or is it sort of six of one half a dozen of the other as long as the data model is decent?

btown 12y ago
MySQL historically had more support for HA/clustering than Postgres. Recently, there's been a lot of progress on integrating Postgres clustering into the core, to the point where it's mature, but perhaps not as battle-tested. Not a reason to choose MySQL for a startup, I think, but if you've got a cluster working on MySQL and a clear understanding of its pitfalls, there's no real reason to switch to Postgres.
- calinet6 12y ago
  That makes sense, thanks. I guess as long as you have a reasonably optimized relational database of a given class, you're going to be about on the same order of magnitude of performance.
markwatson 12y ago
We chose MySQL where I work only because it's easier to hire people with a lot of MySQL knowledge. Technical reasons aren't the only ones when deciding what software/framework/libraries to use.
- yangyang 12y ago
  That can work both ways though. Sometimes if you chose a less popular option it can make it easier to find outstanding candidates.
vtal 12y ago
1. Monitoring and administration tools for MySQL are (better?) more polished. 2. WAY easier to find MySQL DBA's vs. PG DBA's 3. More resources in general around MySQL. Whatever problem/issue you have it's out there already.

threeseed 12y ago

Scaling databases is EASY if you pick a database designed for it. I've personally managed Cassandra, HBase and Riak on 30+ node clusters for companies. Almost no issues. It shows how little you know about real world scalability when you actually suggest MySQL over something like Cassandra. It is a nightmare to scale unless you are sharding in your application layer.

Xorlev 12y ago
It can be easier, but saying it's ever easy belies the bevy of issues that can (and will) always crop up.

samlambert 12y ago

The problem with going into too much detail is that it can become a list of recommendations that might not even apply to different people's infrastructure. Most of the time MySQL optimization is workload specific.