3 ms·
MySQL scales for reads pretty well since it has a well understood and mature replication system. In contrast, the PostgreSQL replication landscape is somewhat
by spudlyo 17y ago
MySQL scales for reads pretty well since it has a well understood and mature replication system. In contrast, the PostgreSQL replication landscape is somewhat muddy. Scaling writes is a challenge of course, and PostgreSQL might be the better choice there for getting the most out of big hardware. Scaling up can really cost though, as the price-to-performance ratio gets outside of the sweet spot when the hardware you're buying gets more exotic.
- catch23 17y agoI'm not debating which database scales better. I'm questioning why anyone would use a "big" server for mysql. If you're going to do replication with mysql, you don't need 10 servers with 68 gigs of memory -- you'd probably be better off with 100 servers with 4 gigs of memory. However, if you're going to go with "big" database servers, one should use Oracle or PostgreSQL since they can actually make use of the memory & cpu cores.
- spudlyo 17y agoAny 64-bit MySQL will do fine with big memory. It is with > 16 cores that modern MySQL suffers from concurrency problems with mutex contention. These AMZN big memory instances have 4/8 cores, well within the area where MySQL performs well.