Re: MySQL vs. Postgres
My workplace used php3 + mysql, then php3 + oracle, now looking at a
combination of php3 + local mysql + master oracle db (the local mysql db's
would act as caches for fast answers to most page queries). This is for
scalability and availability reasons.
php most commonly used with mysql, told by php dudes it's better supported,
and php4 + mysql further the integration, projects cooperating. mysql are
doing work on replicating the db which would be a nice thing to have for
scalability.
> We run mySQL here and created an application with PHP3/4 to interface with
> the SQL engine. I will tell you now, that we re-wrote all the php pages
into
> ANSI C as the performance was PATHETIC. (p2 350 with 256 megs of ram) The
> performance was 10 times faster than php. Another thing that I notice
about
Rather surprised by that, wonder what the hit rate was. On the web server I
run which has been pretty busy at times (1GB served less than a week, daily
access logs of 60-70MB), the php and apache usage was virtually undectable,
p3 650 256MB.
Basically DB access and network download times, swamped out anything that
the PHP interpreter does.
> mySQL is that it's load can get rather high if you have a large database.
> (we have 5k records in a realestate database so there's a pile of fields
too
> that we have broken into 50 different tables to optimize the searches).
>
> If you plan on running a dynamic website, we aware of the following
issues.
> 1) You will need more horsepower that you likely think. (true in my
> experience with this solution)
> 2) Search engines will NOT index php pages or asp pages and the like
nearly
> as well as static pages. This is a big deal if you are looking for traffic
> to this site.
> 3) If you decided to go this way, offload the mySQL to a box on it's own,
> you will see marked improvement. We moved ours to a 700 with 512 megs of
ram
> and it's almost acceptable. (we get a few searches a minute, not a lot,
but
> definately busy)
Reply to: