Re: Wikipedia on Postgres (was Re: postgresql vs mysql)

Le vendredi 23 février 2007 16:37, Ian Harding a écrit :
> On 2/22/07, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake escribió:
> > > Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
> > > > On 2/23/07, Jim Nasby <decibel@decibel.org> wrote:
> > > >> That depends greatly on what you're doing with it. Generally, as
> > > >> soon as you start throwing a multi-user workload at it, MySQL stops
> > > >> scaling. http://tweakers.net recently did a study on that.
> > > >
> > > > I think I recall that wikipedia uses MySQL ... they get quite a few
> > > > hits, too, I believe.
> > >
> > > And outages if you watch :)
> >
> > Does this mean that we believe the Wikipedia would not suffer any
> > outages if it ran on Postgres?
> >
> > How is the Postgres port of the Wikipedia doing this days anyway?  Is it
> > in a shape where one would consider it "competitive"?
>
> I use mediawiki with postgres and it works fine, except for a bug
> regarding timestamps.  That bug is due to mysqlism of the code.  Once
> that's fixed, it will be ready as far as I'm concerned.
I get an error with tsearch2 query parser, and patch that.
( http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8958 , thanks Greg )
>
> <editorial>There have been some tragic and embarrassing data losses by
> some big sites that should know better because they used mysql without
> the heroic measures that are needed to make it safe.  I don't care
> that much that big sites use it, big sites start small and don't
> always start with the best tools.  Once started, it's hard to switch
> over to better tools.  If you used enough volkswagen beetles you could
> move the same number of passengers on the same routes as Greyhound
> does with buses, but that doesn't mean they are the right
> tool.</editorial>
>
>
> - Ian
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend