Re: Drupal and PostgreSQL - performance issues?

On 16/10/2008, at 18.27, Scott Marlowe wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
> wrote:
>> * DelGurth (delgurth@gmail.com) wrote:
>>> Seems Tomasz linked to the wrong patch. The patch he meant was:
>>> http://drupal.org/files/issues/drupal_lookup_path-6.x.patch.txt
>>
>> That's much better.
>>
>>> Also nice to see people "benchmark" differences by just executing a
>>> query once[2][3]....
>>
>> This thread is insane..  Is every change to drupal run through this
>> kind
>> of design-by-committee?  And the paranoia of a cost difference of
>> 0.09ms
>> for something which ends up getting cached for one particular storage
>> engine under one particular database?!
>>
>> Makes me worried about drupal's future, heh.
>
> In all fairness, pgsql goes through the same kind of design by
> committee process.  We just have a committee of very smart people
> hashing things out.

Well, I think it's a general weak spot of almost all CMS projects.
They are all run by programmers, not DBAs. In our case, it's PHP
people excel at, (sadly) not *SQL. That's a trend I've seen a lot with
web developers. They like to program, and the database is usually
abstracted away as much as possible, to avoid having to write your own
queries.

That is, at least, the picture I'm seeing. PHP PDO, ActiveRecord,
SQLAlchemy, Django DB, Hibernate. Not all of these are equally bad,
but the main reason these are so popular is that then you don't have
to write SQL.

So, we have a lot of otherwise proficient programmers who couldn't SQL
their way out a phone booth. Sigh.

P.S.: Why are e-mails from this list not sent with a Reply-To: header
of the lists e-mail-address?