> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf > Of Tom Lane > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:55 AM > To: Vick Khera > Cc: Scott Ribe; Allan Kamau; pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Why facebook used mysql ? > > Vick Khera <vivek@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Also, my understanding is that if you go way back on the PostgreSQL timeline to versions 6 > and earliest 7.x, it was a little shaky. (I started with 7.3 or 7.4, and it has been rock > > > solid.) > > > In those same times, mysql was also, um, other than rock solid. > I don't have enough operational experience with mysql to speak to how > reliable it was back in the day. What it *did* have over postgres back > then was speed. It was a whole lot faster, particularly on the sort of > single-stream-of-simple-queries cases that people who don't know > databases are likely to set up as benchmarks. (mysql still beats us on > cases like that, though not by as much.) I think that drove quite a > few early adoption decisions, and now folks are locked in; the cost of > conversion outweighs the (perceived) benefits. A different slant on this has to do with licensing and $$. Might Oracle decide some day to start charging for their new found DB? They are a for-profit company that's beholding to their shareholders LONG before an open software community. Consumers like Facebook and Google have deep pockets, something corporate executives really don't dismiss lightly. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
