Postgresql vs mysql?

hi, which is better between postgresql and mysql in a system with a lot
of queries and where performance is very important ? is possible for
both to have a database cluster? is there anyone who has one ?

nick wrote:

hi, which is better between postgresql and mysql in a system with a lot
of queries and where performance is very important ? is possible for
both to have a database cluster? is there anyone who has one ?

Rails tries to stay fairly agnostic about this. I’m personally a huge
PostgreSQL fan. One major difference is the open source license.
PostgreSQL has a BSD license, which is very similar to that of Rails,
while MySQL has a dual-license scheme that has some limitations for how
you sell your product.

As far as features, PostgreSQL wins because of how far you can go with
it… from built-in GIS (PostGIS) to creating stored procedures,
triggers, etc… with Ruby… I could go on and on.

PostgreSQL++

Cheers,

Robby


Robby R.
http://www.robbyonrails.com/

Robby R. wrote:

PostgreSQL++

You might do a few google searches on postgresql versus mysql. There
have been several articles conducted on this.

Exhibit A: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/oracle/115560

Good luck!

Robby


Robby R.
http://www.robbyonrails.com/

MySQL Cluster is a very weird beast. It’s honestly not really MySQL, but

seconded :slight_smile:

just uses the SQL parsing engine to connect into a radically different
back end. I read the MySQL Press book on MySQL cluster and was amused
when a “disadvantage” of MySQL Cluster was (paraphrased): You cannot
alter the schema while the database is online with statements such as
ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN, and ALTER TABLE CREATE INDEX. Who in the world
has an application stable enough to accept that limitation? :slight_smile:

It’s a bit worse than this though… you can’t add new tables either.
Which gets annoying if you add a new feature to your site and that
feature
needs a new table… you have to put it into “single node” mode. We
probably do this once a month…

Now, one thing that the docs don’t (or didn’t) make very clear is that
“online” and “offline” isn’t what you normally think of in this case.
“single node” is really just that. All the nodes but one go offline, so
you can still serve up content – as long as that single node can handle
the load.

There are other issues to consider when looking at mysql cluster
though…
at least with 5.0 it’s all ram based so if you have a huge dataset, keep
that in mind. There is also a 32,000 “affected rows” limitation. You
can’t update/delete/insert more than 32,000 rows at a time. I’ve found
many times it’s actually much less (more like 10,000). Which isn’t a
problem until you try to do a dump/restore and your dump uses extended
inserts. The other big one is that there are no varchars in mysql
cluster. Everything is padded out. And there’s a row length limit, but
I
don’t recall what it is. Also you can’t do “SELECT … FROM … WHERE a
LIKE … OR b LIKE” (ie. OR’d LIKEs). And some other odd quirks.

I’m just listing these out cause if you’re gonna decide now, better to
know all the various gotchas before you get too far down that road :confused:

Philip H. wrote:

There are other issues to consider when looking at mysql cluster
though…
at least with 5.0 it’s all ram based so if you have a huge dataset, keep
that in mind. There is also a 32,000 “affected rows” limitation. You
can’t update/delete/insert more than 32,000 rows at a time. I’ve found
many times it’s actually much less (more like 10,000). Which isn’t a
problem until you try to do a dump/restore and your dump uses extended
inserts. The other big one is that there are no varchars in mysql
cluster. Everything is padded out. And there’s a row length limit, but
I
don’t recall what it is. Also you can’t do “SELECT … FROM … WHERE a
LIKE … OR b LIKE” (ie. OR’d LIKEs). And some other odd quirks.

I’m just listing these out cause if you’re gonna decide now, better to
know all the various gotchas before you get too far down that road :confused:

and about a postgresql cluster what do you think?

I
don’t recall what it is. Also you can’t do “SELECT … FROM … WHERE a
LIKE … OR b LIKE” (ie. OR’d LIKEs). And some other odd quirks.

I’m just listing these out cause if you’re gonna decide now, better to
know all the various gotchas before you get too far down that road :confused:

and about a postgresql cluster what do you think?

Nothing… I’ve never had the chance to use it. And it’s been a long
time
since I looked at slony which is the only free implementation I believe
(I
could be totally wrong). There’s at least one company that has a
commercial version…

Also, look into pgpool. It pretends it’s a postgresql database and can
send selects to a pool of backend servers and send all
inserts/updates/deletes to a single backend server.

Seems like that would come in very handy with rails…

but again, I haven’t used that either :slight_smile:

On Jan 22, 2007, at 6:31 AM, nick wrote:

hi, which is better between postgresql and mysql in a system with a
lot
of queries and where performance is very important ? is possible for
both to have a database cluster? is there anyone who has one?

Hello Nick.

I’m also a huge PostgreSQL fan, but have found that MySQL has a gigantic
advantage in replication functionality -vs- PostgreSQL. The only
built-in
support for this is is log-shipping, which doesn’t allow the replica
to be
read from, which is very unfortunate. We make backups via replicas, for
instance, so that primary database performance is not impacted while the
backups are proceeding.

MySQL Cluster is a very weird beast. It’s honestly not really MySQL, but
just uses the SQL parsing engine to connect into a radically different
back end. I read the MySQL Press book on MySQL cluster and was amused
when
a “disadvantage” of MySQL Cluster was (paraphrased): You cannot alter
the
schema while the database is online with statements such as ALTER TABLE
ADD COLUMN, and ALTER TABLE CREATE INDEX. Who in the world has an
application stable enough to accept that limitation? :slight_smile:

In the end, I’d highly recommend that you table performance for the
time
being. Write the application as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Spend
time on tests and careful factoring rather than performance concerns.
You’ll
have time and money when performance becomes an issue, and with tests
and
well factored code, you’ll have the foundation required to make whatever
changes are required to achieve the performance you desire.


– Tom M., CTO
– Engine Y., Ruby on Rails Hosting
– Reliability, Ease of Use, Scalability
– (866) 518-YARD (9273)

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs