For those Rails users amongst us, many of these cool data types (I am particularly hanging out for Arrays) are available in the fast-improving postgres_ext gemⁱ, and (even more exciting) there's an effort to get it merged into Rails 4.
PostgreSQL Rising
31–40 of 204 posts
Re: PostgreSQL Rising
#32What are the scaling differences between MySQL and PostgreSQL? That's the main reason we haven't shifted and we have a new project coming up that I've been interested to use PostgreSQL with as one our developers prefers it, but are we opening a whole new can of worms on that front?
PostgreSQL is massively more scalable than MySQL.
Re: PostgreSQL Rising
#33What are the scaling differences between MySQL and PostgreSQL? That's the main reason we haven't shifted and we have a new project coming up that I've been interested to use PostgreSQL with as one our developers prefers it, but are we opening a whole new can of worms on that front?
PostgreSQL is massively more scalable than MySQL.
Definitely. When your application needs hundreds of read slaves in order to scale the load, PostgreSQL has always been everyone's first choice due to it's mature and historically awesome replication system. That's why companies who need to scale big (YouTube, Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Wikipedia, Twitter etc) all have hundreds (if not thousands) of PostgreSQL machines in their infrastructure.
Re: PostgreSQL Rising
#34What are the scaling differences between MySQL and PostgreSQL? That's the main reason we haven't shifted and we have a new project coming up that I've been interested to use PostgreSQL with as one our developers prefers it, but are we opening a whole new can of worms on that front?
For vertical scaling, PostgreSQL is generally seen to be much faster. That varies by workload, of course, and I'm sure you could tailor a benchmark that shows MySQL to be dramatically faster than PostgreSQL. But in every benchmark or sample set I've come across, PostgreSQL tends to scale linearly with the number of processor cores and handles ridiculously unlikely concurrency demands with ease. MySQL has a reputation, deserved or not, for being fast for single-connection, read-only workloads but not so quick when writes or multiple users are added in. Under load, PostgreSQL seems to be faster than the quick-but-dangerous MyISAM MySQL table type, and almost always faster than the slow-but-safer InnoDB table type.
I can't speak to horizontal scaling, as my little database with maybe 50 million rows never comes close to loading out its aging 4-core server, even when being hammered by lots of web visitors running complicated reports and internal clients performing all sorts of CRUD operations.
Re: PostgreSQL Rising
#35I would probably consider PostgreSQL if I didn't need MySQL on my VPS for wordpress.
Re: PostgreSQL Rising
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
PostgreSQL is massively more scalable than MySQL.
Definitely. When your application needs hundreds of read slaves in order to scale the load, PostgreSQL has always been everyone's first choice due to it's mature and historically awesome replication system. That's why companies who need to scale big (YouTube, Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Wikipedia, Twitter etc) all have hundreds (if not thousands) of PostgreSQL machines in their infrastructure.
Im going to assume this is sarcasm since Facebook is built entirely on sharded MySQL. Don't want anyone else to get confused in case it doesn't come through for them.
Re: PostgreSQL Rising
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
> our data which is partitioned by week then organized according to a hierarchical triangular mesh with bitmapped indexes Sounds like you're getting your money's worth out of Oracle - which is a good thing. For many others (especially those in the .NET world) they use very few of the high end SQL Server stuff.
Yeah, there's a lot of other things we use it for. We have a lot of hierarchical data that uses the CONNECT BY statement, and I hate it because it has issues with scaling and bad execution plans, so I'm working on migrating all of that to a closure table instead.
Does Postgres have an equivalent Connect By feature? Last I checked it didn't. If you don't need to scale your hierarchical data much, its pretty handy. I'd prefer to go to Postgres too.
Re: PostgreSQL Rising
#38The article summary is #ccc on white.
Re: PostgreSQL Rising
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
PostgreSQL is massively more scalable than MySQL.
Definitely. When your application needs hundreds of read slaves in order to scale the load, PostgreSQL has always been everyone's first choice due to it's mature and historically awesome replication system. That's why companies who need to scale big (YouTube, Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Wikipedia, Twitter etc) all have hundreds (if not thousands) of PostgreSQL machines in their infrastructure.
[deleted]
Re: PostgreSQL Rising
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely. When your application needs hundreds of read slaves in order to scale the load, PostgreSQL has always been everyone's first choice due to it's mature and historically awesome replication system. That's why companies who need to scale big (YouTube, Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Wikipedia, Twitter etc) all have hundreds (if not thousands) of PostgreSQL machines in their infrastructure.
[deleted]
They all are, GP has chosen to be unfortunately sarcastic.