>And if MySQL wasn't robust then YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Alibaba, LinkedIn etc wouldn't be using it for core parts of their infrastructure. It's definitely

>And if MySQL wasn't robust then YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Alibaba, LinkedIn etc wouldn't be using it for core parts of their infrastructure. It's definitely robust. Either that or they have staff and infrastructure in place to deal with the lack of robustness. Yes, you need to be prepared to deal with corruption anyways, but the more robust your solution, the more time is left to deal with other things. Over the years I have seen multiple instances of MySQL table corruption, index corruption and mysqldump exiting with a zero exit code after aborting mid-dump due to table corruption. Of course I was prepared for this and I always had backups ready, but it was still time-consuming and annoying. With Postgres I've yet to see any kind of data corruption even though my postgres usage is much heavier than my MySQL usage. But this is why I said "anecdotal evidence": For me personally, Postgres has proven to be way more robust than MySQL. Is this my inability to properly administer MySQL? Is it me being unlucky with hardware (though Postgres is fine on the same hardware)? Is it me just being unlucky? I really don't know.