21–30 of 30 posts
SQL is a language, MySQL is a database implementation (and arguably a pretty crappy one). There is nothing about SQL that makes it so that it can't operate at 'webscale'. Oddly enough, Facebook and Google have both made MySQL work at 'webscale'. Most 'webscale' databases rely on keeping data in memory, you'll see equally impressive performance improvments in MySQL if you run it in a ramdisk.
Google uses MySQL?
I'm intrigued by this, but there's so much ambiguity around what people mean by sql, noSql, and "newSql" (this post is the first time I've read this term). I clicked through a bit to get more information... here's a potential definition: http://blogs.the451group.com/information_management/2011/04/... “NewSQL” is our shorthand for the various new scalable/high performance SQL database vendors. We have previously refer…
SQL is a language, MySQL is a database implementation (and arguably a pretty crappy one). There is nothing about SQL that makes it so that it can't operate at 'webscale'. Oddly enough, Facebook and Google have both made MySQL work at 'webscale'. Most 'webscale' databases rely on keeping data in memory, you'll see equally impressive performance improvments in MySQL if you run it in a ramdisk.
Google uses MySQL?
The widely accepted problem with MySQL is that it wasn’t built for webscale applications [snip]
and:
In Stonebraker’s opinion, “old SQL (as he calls it) is good for nothing” and needs to be “sent to the home for retired software.” After all, he explained, SQL was created decades ago before the web, mobile devices and sensors forever changed how and how often databases are accessed.
Then:
However, it was quickly discovered that while NoSQL might be faster and scale better, it did so at the expense of ACID consistency.
This is ridiculous. He's making claims about a whole group of software that's only definition is a feature or attribute that they don't have. And it's flat out false. Look at Riak (a key/value store) and how it allows you to tune these parameters on each query or write.
The whole article is genuinely a massive trolling piece.
Facebook's use of MySQL makes total sense just like their use of PHP does. It was written in those languages/technologies way back when and while it might all be held together by duct tape and bubblegum, a wholesale rewrite is a TERRIBLE idea. Does Facebook run and make money? Are users happy? Is it fast? In general if those three things are good, then why do a rewrite or a massive switch? Facebook has very smart dev…
Also, architecturally there's no reason to do a massive re-write of any software all at once, and it usually ends in tears. They can do it piece by piece and they should be making those investments now if they hope to last another half decade.
Besides, isn't facebook using hive/hadoop for most of its storage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt Facebook is going to go spend megabucks on Oracle, though. And Postgres isn't going to make your life all that much better at FB levels of scale.
Spending money on Oracle or moving to Postgres will just make things worse. At that scale you need to do 2 things, denormalize and cache. (And, if you're FB, buy 75% of FusionIO's production). Big complicated queries just don't scale like simple key-value lookups, especially if they impose locking constraints on your database or try to join against things that are sharded to different servers. Doesn't really matter w…
SQL is a language, MySQL is a database implementation (and arguably a pretty crappy one). There is nothing about SQL that makes it so that it can't operate at 'webscale'. Oddly enough, Facebook and Google have both made MySQL work at 'webscale'. Most 'webscale' databases rely on keeping data in memory, you'll see equally impressive performance improvments in MySQL if you run it in a ramdisk.
Google uses MySQL?
From 2007: http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2007/12/28/how-youtube-scal... Undated job opening: http://www.google.com/intl/ln/jobs/uslocations/mountain-view...
SQL is a language, MySQL is a database implementation (and arguably a pretty crappy one). There is nothing about SQL that makes it so that it can't operate at 'webscale'. Oddly enough, Facebook and Google have both made MySQL work at 'webscale'. Most 'webscale' databases rely on keeping data in memory, you'll see equally impressive performance improvments in MySQL if you run it in a ramdisk.
Google uses MySQL?