I'll agree with Bill's response... If they dont want a rdbms what do
they want? If they know of something that scales better and is faster,
I'll bet they can make a lot of money. Lot of high traffic sites would
love to hear what they think.
> conventional wisdom seems to be that since obviously databases don't
> scale on the web,
Conventional? No, I don't think so. If you have 200 Gig of data,
what's going to search it faster than a rdbms?
If you have 200 Gig of data, with very intensive database queries, what
scales better than having one web server round-robin requests to 10
database servers?
I think the conventional wisdom is that non-database people cannot setup
a database to run quickly to save their life. And then blame the database.
-Andy
snacktime wrote:
I'm working through the architecture design for a new product. We
have a small group working on this. It's a web app that will be using
ruby on rails. The challenge I'm running into is that the latest
conventional wisdom seems to be that since obviously databases don't
scale on the web, you should just not use them at all. I have a group
of otherwise very bright people trying to convince me that a rdbms is
not a good place to store relational data because eventually it won't
scale. And of course we don't even have version 1 of our product out
of the door. I'll admit we do have a very good chance of actually
getting tons of traffic, but my position is to use a rdbms for
relational data, and then if and when it won't scale any more, deal
with it then.
So what would really help me is some real world numbers on how
postgresql is doing in the wild under pressure. If anyone cares to
throw some out I would really appreciate it.
Chris
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
