Re: help with site+database
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:08:18AM -0400, Peter Billson wrote:
> > PHP is OK, but i wouldn't use mysql for anything. i really don't
> > understand how anyone could trust their data to a toy.
>
> Slashdot uses mySQL as its database and I don't think that anyone
> could plausibly argue that /. isn't an intensive use of a database by
> a very busy, and very successful, Web site. If you've ever perused
> Slashcode you'll also agree that those are some really ugly SQL
> statements! :-)
yeah, i know. i started porting slash to postgres when it was first
released....i gave up after about 2 weeks (and used Zope/squishdot
instead) when i realised that the bugs i was finding had nothing to
do with the fact that i was porting to postgres but were inherent in
the original code (i.e. i installed mysql and was getting the exact
same problems). some of them were so bad that i was surprised that it
actually worked at all (but the code released wasn't exactly the same as
the code running on slashdot at the time).
it's possible that slash has been ported to postgres properly by now.
maybe it's worth another look.
> The answer to the "which is better" question seems to depend on
> what you are using the database for. My suggestion is to grab both
> databases, populate them with your data and manually run some of your
> "typical" queries on them. See which works better for *your* needs.
personally, i'd just use postgres. mysql's single advantage over
postgres was speed, and that just isn't there any more....especially
when you consider that if your site is big enough to benefit from a few
milliseconds difference in performance then it's also big enough to hit
mysql's scalability limits.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Reply to: