"Kevin Grigorenko" <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:20041025024245.79226.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > "Zareef Ahmed" <za@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message > news:001d01c4ba3b$a9e91c80$0100a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxx > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kevin Grigorenko [mailto:kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 12:36 AM > > To: php-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: MySQL Scalability, part 2 > > > > Hi, > > > > First, sorry for posting an attachment. Second, I fixed my problem to > > use > > files, but I just had a general question: > > > > Is it really scalable to use MySQL on every page hit as compared to > > writing > > to files? Is it true that it only has a certain number of connections > > it > > can open at a time (20-30?), and the contention is larger? > > > > [>>] Yes mysql is much faster than file writing. Just to clarify, my response was based on this part of your answer, not the open connections part. Thank you for that link explaining the open connections piece of it. My response was in response to the fact that it is faster than file writing. Sorry if there was confusion. > And you can open > > multiple connection to it. > > What is this statement based on?I'm absolutely not questioning you, I am > just skeptical (if you have any websites or performance benchmarks, please > provide). It's hard for me to imagine that a file system access (let alone > appending one line to the end of a file) is slower than a MySQL execution. > Even if we assume that MySQL does everything in memory, here are just some > of the things that have to happen: > > 1. A MySQL connection may be opened. Perhaps there is connection pooling, > and this isn't too bad, just finds a reference to an already open MySQL > connection. Performance hit ~ 0 > 2. mysql_query is executed, which first must go through the PHP library, > then connect to a socket (perhaps on another server, but we'll assume on the > same server for now). Performance hit ~ negligible if the mysql daemon is > on the same server > 3. The mysql daemon then has to process this request along with whatever > load is already on the daemon, then needs to get locks on the table to > insert into it. Performance hit ~ could be a lot, I doubt MySQL is faster at > locking than flock() > 4. MySQL has to probably do a lot of in memory operations and then send the > result back over the socket. > > But if you have some webpages that prove otherwise, i will be VERY GLAD to > see them, because mysql sure makes everything much easier. I just can't see > it yet based on such a simple statement as above. > > > > > Visit > > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Too_many_connections.html > > > > Thanks, > > Kevin > > > > -- > > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > > Zareef Ahmed :: A PHP develoepr in Delhi ( India ) > > Homepage :: http://www.zasaifi.com > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/22/2004 > > > > Thank you, > Kevin Grigorenko Kevin -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
