[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: MySQL vs. Postgres


Some stats for you. Keep in mind that these are only for the webserver.

        Hits               Bytes      Visits      PViews      Month
   8,891,404      58,798,965,869     211,007   1,528,073   Jun 2000
  10,853,047      57,775,413,897     224,862   1,375,197   Jul 2000
   9,121,259      53,851,857,460     210,680   1,421,053   Aug 2000

Granted we have other clients, but I would guess that 60-80% of the
consumers are 'real estate interested'.

> 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
> 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

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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> and it's almost acceptable. (we get a few searches a minute, not a lot,
> definately busy)

Reply to: