snacktime wrote:
>> I'm working through the architecture design for a new product. We
>> have a small group working on this. It's a web app that will be using
>> ruby on rails. The challenge I'm running into is that the latest
>> conventional wisdom seems to be that since obviously databases don't
>> scale on the web, you should just not use them at all. I have a group
>> of otherwise very bright people trying to convince me that a rdbms is
>> not a good place to store relational data because eventually it won't
>> scale. And of course we don't even have version 1 of our product out
>> of the door. I'll admit we do have a very good chance of actually
>> getting tons of traffic, but my position is to use a rdbms for
>> relational data, and then if and when it won't scale any more, deal
>> with it then.
>>
>> So what would really help me is some real world numbers on how
>> postgresql is doing in the wild under pressure. If anyone cares to
>> throw some out I would really appreciate it.
It sounds like the RoR people are talking about any relational database,
and not just Postgres. Many very busy sites do use relational
databases successfully. So it can work. Many other have failed. So it
can fail, if the situation is exceptionally unusual, or IMHO more
likely, it´s poorly implemented.
What the main argument of their ¨won´t scale¨ stance? Why not setup a
test case to prove or disprove it? I don´t think anything we can
suggest based on what we know of your project will help, unless someone
happens to throw out a nearly identical case.
I would be surprised if avoiding a database is a better solution. But
regardless, I would be more worried about using a technology when most
of the core group doesn´t believe in it. That often leads to bad
results, regardless of whether it should.
Paul