Обсуждение: Is PostgreSQL an easy choice for a large CMS?
Hello all, I'm working on a CMS which requires an open source database capable of handling hundreds of thousands of users simultaneously, with a high rate of database writes, and without buckling. We're talking somewhere between nerve.com/catch27.com and xanga.com/friendster.com PostgreSQL is a personal favorite of mine, and my gut instinct is that it's the best choice for a large scale CMS serving many users; however, I'm getting antsy. I keep getting suggestions that Postgres is really only suited to small and medium projects, and that I should be looking at MySQL for a large scale database drive site. I'm not really a fan of MySQL, but I'll consider it if it truly is the better choice in this case. I just don't understand how it would be. I'm thinking this is solely in reference to VACUUM. Even with autovacuum suport, I tend to agree there is at least one handicap. I could really use some enlightenment on just where PostgreSQL fits in a single-server, highly-trafficked web site serving mostly text, pictures and possibly streaming media. Regards, Anthony
On Sunday 30 April 2006 12:01, Tony Lausin wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm working on a CMS which requires an open source database capable of > handling hundreds of thousands of users simultaneously, with a high > rate of database writes, and without buckling. We're talking somewhere > between nerve.com/catch27.com and xanga.com/friendster.com > > PostgreSQL is a personal favorite of mine, and my gut instinct is that > it's the best choice for a large scale CMS serving many users; > however, I'm getting antsy. I keep getting suggestions that Postgres > is really only suited to small and medium projects, and that I should > be looking at MySQL for a large scale database drive site. I'm not > really a fan of MySQL, but I'll consider it if it truly is the better > choice in this case. I just don't understand how it would be. I'm > thinking this is solely in reference to VACUUM. Even with autovacuum > suport, I tend to agree there is at least one handicap. > > I could really use some enlightenment on just where PostgreSQL fits in > a single-server, highly-trafficked web site serving mostly text, > pictures and possibly streaming media. > > Regards, > > Anthony > Very odd. I had always heard that MySql (at least originally) was a "quick and dirty" database, easy to use, not fully standards compliant, and not enterprise grade. Postgresql on the other hand was always the heavyweight, standards compliant, enterprise db, which was more difficult to use and set up but much more resilient. Postgresql has been getting more UI support (often seen as a user friendly bonus) and things like autovacuum support so that it is easier to use out of the box, and MySql has been gaining standards compliance and resilience. Funny how perceptions can differ. David
On 4/30/06, Tony Lausin <tonylausin@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm working on a CMS which requires an open source database capable of > handling hundreds of thousands of users simultaneously, with a high > rate of database writes, and without buckling. We're talking somewhere > between nerve.com/catch27.com and xanga.com/friendster.com > > PostgreSQL is a personal favorite of mine, and my gut instinct is that > it's the best choice for a large scale CMS serving many users; > however, I'm getting antsy. I keep getting suggestions that Postgres > is really only suited to small and medium projects, and that I should > be looking at MySQL for a large scale database drive site. I'm not > really a fan of MySQL, but I'll consider it if it truly is the better > choice in this case. I just don't understand how it would be. I'm > thinking this is solely in reference to VACUUM. Even with autovacuum > suport, I tend to agree there is at least one handicap. > > I could really use some enlightenment on just where PostgreSQL fits in > a single-server, highly-trafficked web site serving mostly text, > pictures and possibly streaming media. http://people.planetpostgresql.org/xzilla/index.php?/archives/151-Sean-Chittenden-on-RubyOnRails-Podcast.html http://www.postgresql.org/about/casestudies/ http://www.postgresql.org/about/users are all good places to start. TBH it depends a lot on your data and how you structure it. I wrote a small tute on how to get rid of left-join type queries and use triggers to keep count(*) type queries to a minimum.. http://www.designmagick.com/article/36/Forum-Project/Database-Design-Issues It's not always possible, but there are ways to minimize count(*), min(field), max(field) type queries where postgresql isn't able to optimize fully due to mvcc issues. -- Postgresql & php tutorials http://www.designmagick.com/
On 4/30/06, Tony Lausin <tonylausin@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm working on a CMS which requires an open source database capable of > handling hundreds of thousands of users simultaneously, with a high > rate of database writes, and without buckling. We're talking somewhere > between nerve.com/catch27.com and xanga.com/friendster.com In my opinion, postgresql is not the way to go when building a cMS simply because of the way it handles strings. A CMS should be language/region agnostic i.e. supporting any chosen locale subset, rather then just one locale, as postgresql does. You can throw UTF-8 at the problem and it will enable data storage/retrieval, but you'll still be stuck with incorrect text ordering/sorting in any locale but the default. Truth be told, I don't know of a single RDBMS which handles this issue gracefully, but with postgresql, your basically stuck with a single language/locale. On the other hand, if you don't need multilang support, you'll find that postgresql is generally great to program and use. Tomislav
"Tony Lausin" <tonylausin@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm working on a CMS which requires an open source database capable of
> handling hundreds of thousands of users simultaneously, with a high
> rate of database writes, and without buckling. We're talking somewhere
> between nerve.com/catch27.com and xanga.com/friendster.com
> PostgreSQL is a personal favorite of mine, and my gut instinct is that
> it's the best choice for a large scale CMS serving many users;
> however, I'm getting antsy. I keep getting suggestions that Postgres
> is really only suited to small and medium projects, and that I should
> be looking at MySQL for a large scale database drive site.
[ rotfl... ] MySQL will fall over under any heavy concurrent-write
scenario. It's conceivable that PG won't do what you need either,
but if not I'm afraid you're going to be forced into Oracle or one
of the other serious-money DBs.
regards, tom lane
> [ rotfl... ] MySQL will fall over under any heavy concurrent-write > scenario. It's conceivable that PG won't do what you need either, > but if not I'm afraid you're going to be forced into Oracle or one > of the other serious-money DBs. > > regards, tom lane Hi Tom, That's a scary idea - being forced into Oracle or Sybase. Isn't Slashdot.org still running strongly off of MySQL? Regards, Anthony
> Very odd. I had always heard that MySql (at least originally) was a > "quick and dirty" database, easy to use, not fully standards compliant, > and not enterprise grade. Postgresql on the other hand was always > the heavyweight, standards compliant, enterprise db, which was more > difficult to use and set up but much more resilient. Postgresql has been > getting more UI support (often seen as a user friendly bonus) and > things like autovacuum support so that it is easier to use out of the box, > and MySql has been gaining standards compliance and resilience. > > Funny how perceptions can differ. Hi David, I think it's very odd too, cause that's the exact same perception of MySQL I have. My experience with MySQL is really limited to my Wordpress blog, and that means I've never actually designed a database with it. I wonder how much of this is just marketing and hype - either on the side of MySQL or the side of Oracle.
> In my opinion, postgresql is not the way to go when building a cMS > simply because of the way it handles strings. > A CMS should be language/region agnostic i.e. supporting any chosen > locale subset, rather then just one locale, as postgresql does. You > can throw UTF-8 at the problem and it will enable data > storage/retrieval, but you'll still be stuck with incorrect text > ordering/sorting in any locale but the default. > Truth be told, I don't know of a single RDBMS which handles this issue > gracefully, but with postgresql, your basically stuck with a single > language/locale. > On the other hand, if you don't need multilang support, you'll find > that postgresql is generally great to program and use. > > Tomislav Hello Tomislav, In my case, UTF-8 is a must. The site contextually will be directed to North Americans, although I do anticipate that many users will from time to time insert text in their own native languages. I myself certainly may use non-latin characters from time to time (cyrillic), so I find UTF-8 to be the best common bridge. Regards, Anthony
Tony Lausin wrote: >> [ rotfl... ] MySQL will fall over under any heavy concurrent-write >> scenario. It's conceivable that PG won't do what you need either, >> but if not I'm afraid you're going to be forced into Oracle or one >> of the other serious-money DBs. >> > That's a scary idea - being forced into Oracle or Sybase. Isn't > Slashdot.org still running strongly off of MySQL? Yes Slashdot runs MySQL, however what Tom said was that MySQL will fall over under any heavy *concurrent-write* scenario. Concurrent-write is the operative word in that sentence. Slashdot by it's very nature reads from the database far far more than it writes. The only writes to the database are things like a new story and user submitted comments, both of with are small in comparison to the number of reads from the database. Matt
On Apr 30, 2006, at 12:23 PM, Tony Lausin wrote: >> On the other hand, if you don't need multilang support, you'll find >> that postgresql is generally great to program and use. >> >> Tomislav > > Hello Tomislav, > > In my case, UTF-8 is a must. The site contextually will be directed to > North Americans, although I do anticipate that many users will from > time to time insert text in their own native languages. I myself > certainly may use non-latin characters from time to time (cyrillic), > so I find UTF-8 to be the best common bridge. > > Regards, > > Anthony Agreed, UTF-8 works fairly well. We just launched a site that has translated content for ~20 languages using a programming language that doesn't natively support unicode (Ruby... but jcode helps us out) and it works great. This is all running on PostgreSQL and we haven't seen any hiccups or complaints from people about strings not displaying right. I don't see why PostgreSQL wouldn't work for what you're working on... -Robby Robby Russell Founder & Executive Director PLANET ARGON, LLC Ruby on Rails Development, Consulting & Hosting www.planetargon.com www.robbyonrails.com +1 503 445 2457 +1 877 55 ARGON [toll free] +1 815 642 4968 [fax]
Ahh. I see the point more clearly now. Perhaps the best strategy for me is to press on with Postgres until the project is at a profitable enough stage to merit a migration to Oracle - should Postgres become an issue. I feel more confident about being able to migrate from Postgres than from MySQL. I am financing this myself. hence the apprehension about the cost. Is there another contender I should think about. On 4/30/06, Matthew T. O'Connor <matthew@zeut.net> wrote: > Tony Lausin wrote: > >> [ rotfl... ] MySQL will fall over under any heavy concurrent-write > >> scenario. It's conceivable that PG won't do what you need either, > >> but if not I'm afraid you're going to be forced into Oracle or one > >> of the other serious-money DBs. > >> > > That's a scary idea - being forced into Oracle or Sybase. Isn't > > Slashdot.org still running strongly off of MySQL? > > Yes Slashdot runs MySQL, however what Tom said was that MySQL will fall > over under any heavy *concurrent-write* scenario. Concurrent-write is > the operative word in that sentence. Slashdot by it's very nature reads > from the database far far more than it writes. The only writes to the > database are things like a new story and user submitted comments, both > of with are small in comparison to the number of reads from the database. > > Matt >
Oops! tonylausin@gmail.com ("Tony Lausin") was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> Ahh. I see the point more clearly now. Perhaps the best strategy for
> me is to press on with Postgres until the project is at a profitable
> enough stage to merit a migration to Oracle - should Postgres become
> an issue. I feel more confident about being able to migrate from
> Postgres than from MySQL. I am financing this myself. hence the
> apprehension about the cost. Is there another contender I should think
> about.
The other plausible option as a "possibly inexpensive" alternative to
PostgreSQL or MySQL(tm) is Firebird, which used to be Borland
Interbase...
They lost a couple of developers to MySQL AB, which may present some
problems, eventually...
--
output = reverse("ofni.secnanifxunil" "@" "enworbbc")
http://linuxfinances.info/info/wp.html
"Tooltips are the proof that icons don't work."
-- Stefaan A. Eeckels
The open source offerings of ingres, ingres R3, runs the Wire section of our business http://www.onesteel.com Allan > > Postgres than from MySQL. I am financing this myself. hence the > > apprehension about the cost. Is there another contender I > > should think > > about. The material contained in this email may be confidential, privileged or copyrighted. If you are not the intended recipient,use, disclosure or copying of this information is prohibited. If you have received this document in error, pleaseadvise the sender and delete the document. Neither OneSteel nor the sender accept responsibility for any viruses containedin this email or any attachments.
* Tony Lausin (tonylausin@gmail.com) wrote:
> Ahh. I see the point more clearly now. Perhaps the best strategy for
> me is to press on with Postgres until the project is at a profitable
> enough stage to merit a migration to Oracle - should Postgres become
> an issue. I feel more confident about being able to migrate from
> Postgres than from MySQL. I am financing this myself. hence the
> apprehension about the cost. Is there another contender I should think
> about.
You may want to read up on MySQL's licenseing system if you havn't
already as well. It's not necessairly what you expect... Basically, if
you don't want to open source (ie: GPL-compatible) the code which uses
MySQL you might need to buy a license from them. Check their website
for a more detailed (though not necessairly any clearer) discussion of
the issues.
Thanks,
Stephen
Вложения
Just to round out the suggestions, if I remember correctly, the OP mentioned something about chat. For entirely dynamic, disposable data, perhaps a reliable database isn't what is called for at all. If the power shuts off, it may not matter that some chat log is lost. I suggest to use the right tool for the job and PostgreSQL doesn't claim to cover all the bases. -M
Thanks for the suggestions, everyone. This is what I have so far: I require an open source DBMS because I want to avoid being locked into a particular vendor, especially one that will send me a big bill. That leaves me with MySQL, PostgreSQL (my preference), Firebird, and possibly Berkeley DB (if I'm willing to part with SQL). I posted a message on comp.databases.berkeley looking for real world examples where Berkeley is being used in a heavily accessed CMS, but have gotten no reply. Firebird is looking very attractive too. At the moment, a commercial license for MySQL with all the support bells and whistles is an impossibility since I'm already paying for other requirements. At this time, I can't immediately choose to GPL my app. I learned that even PostgreSQL's UTF-8 comes with caveats. I've also learned that MySQL will choke on heavy concurrent writes. Unlike in my Slashdot.org and catch27.com examples, my site would get as many writes as it does reads - all with heavy concurrency (a lot of inserts, deletes, and updates). There won't be any chat functions, but it's not like I'd store those in an DB anyway; however there will be message posts. If you think of the project as being a hybrid of online magazine and web-based BBS/social networking, then you can imagine the different data types I will be using. There will be some number crunching, but it's mostly UTF-8 encoded English text with scattered non-English words thrown in. There will also be user-submitted pictures (JPEGs, GIFs, PNGs). I'm content to stick with PostgreSQL providing that it can handle heavy concurrent writes. I'll explore Firebird more too. Wayne Conrad's comment about his own use of PostgreSQL has me pretty optimistic, as does the Proximity multimedia archival case study at postgresql.org. That FeedLounge.com blog Chris linked was definitely an eye-opener. Regards, Anthony
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 14:32, Tony Lausin wrote: > > [ rotfl... ] MySQL will fall over under any heavy concurrent-write > > scenario. It's conceivable that PG won't do what you need either, > > but if not I'm afraid you're going to be forced into Oracle or one > > of the other serious-money DBs. > > > > regards, tom lane > > Hi Tom, > > That's a scary idea - being forced into Oracle or Sybase. Isn't > Slashdot.org still running strongly off of MySQL? Depends on how you define strongly. Slashdot has a LOT of code in place to cache the content so it never has to hit the database directly. Basically, every X seconds, the data creating the site is ripped outta the database and produced as static content so that the writes and reads don't clobber each other. And it still takes a pretty big and fast machine to handle the load.
> On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 14:32, Tony Lausin wrote: >>> [ rotfl... ] MySQL will fall over under any heavy concurrent-write >>> scenario. It's conceivable that PG won't do what you need either, >>> but if not I'm afraid you're going to be forced into Oracle or one >>> of the other serious-money DBs. >>> >>> regards, tom lane >> >> Hi Tom, >> >> That's a scary idea - being forced into Oracle or Sybase. Isn't >> Slashdot.org still running strongly off of MySQL? > > Depends on how you define strongly. Slashdot has a LOT of code in place > to cache the content so it never has to hit the database directly. > Basically, every X seconds, the data creating the site is ripped outta > the database and produced as static content so that the writes and reads > don't clobber each other. And it still takes a pretty big and fast > machine to handle the load. I think slashdot uses memcache... http://www.danga.com/memcached/users.bml I would also read this about mysql's table locking: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/4.1/en/table-locking.html Specifically, regarding myisam tables: "Table locking enables many threads to read from a table at the same time, but if a thread wants to write to a table, it must first get exclusive access. During the update, all other threads that want to access this particular table must wait until the update is done." It doesn't take very many writes before this *really* becomes a problem. We're implementing memcache at work to help with this issue... -philip
On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 12:08, Philip Hallstrom wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 14:32, Tony Lausin wrote: > >>> [ rotfl... ] MySQL will fall over under any heavy concurrent-write > >>> scenario. It's conceivable that PG won't do what you need either, > >>> but if not I'm afraid you're going to be forced into Oracle or one > >>> of the other serious-money DBs. > >>> > >>> regards, tom lane > >> > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> That's a scary idea - being forced into Oracle or Sybase. Isn't > >> Slashdot.org still running strongly off of MySQL? > > > > Depends on how you define strongly. Slashdot has a LOT of code in place > > to cache the content so it never has to hit the database directly. > > Basically, every X seconds, the data creating the site is ripped outta > > the database and produced as static content so that the writes and reads > > don't clobber each other. And it still takes a pretty big and fast > > machine to handle the load. > > I think slashdot uses memcache... > > http://www.danga.com/memcached/users.bml I was under the impression that they also created a lot of static text for pages that are older than x number minutes or days, with updates to those pages becoming further apart as the page for older. > I would also read this about mysql's table locking: > > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/4.1/en/table-locking.html > > Specifically, regarding myisam tables: > > "Table locking enables many threads to read from a table at the same time, > but if a thread wants to write to a table, it must first get exclusive > access. During the update, all other threads that want to access this > particular table must wait until the update is done." > > It doesn't take very many writes before this *really* becomes a problem. > We're implementing memcache at work to help with this issue... Yeah, table level locking doesn't really scale well.
>>>> That's a scary idea - being forced into Oracle or Sybase. Isn't >>>> Slashdot.org still running strongly off of MySQL? >>> >>> Depends on how you define strongly. Slashdot has a LOT of code in place >>> to cache the content so it never has to hit the database directly. >>> Basically, every X seconds, the data creating the site is ripped outta >>> the database and produced as static content so that the writes and reads >>> don't clobber each other. And it still takes a pretty big and fast >>> machine to handle the load. >> >> I think slashdot uses memcache... >> >> http://www.danga.com/memcached/users.bml > > I was under the impression that they also created a lot of static text > for pages that are older than x number minutes or days, with updates to > those pages becoming further apart as the page for older. They very well could. I don't know anything beyond what that page says... >> I would also read this about mysql's table locking: >> >> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/4.1/en/table-locking.html >> >> Specifically, regarding myisam tables: >> >> "Table locking enables many threads to read from a table at the same time, >> but if a thread wants to write to a table, it must first get exclusive >> access. During the update, all other threads that want to access this >> particular table must wait until the update is done." >> >> It doesn't take very many writes before this *really* becomes a problem. >> We're implementing memcache at work to help with this issue... > > Yeah, table level locking doesn't really scale well. Which is ironic since the top of that page says: "For large tables, table locking is much better than row locking for most applications..." Which, just right off the bat, doesn't make much sense... oh well.
On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 13:37, Philip Hallstrom wrote: > > >> I would also read this about mysql's table locking: > >> > >> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/4.1/en/table-locking.html > >> > >> Specifically, regarding myisam tables: > >> > >> "Table locking enables many threads to read from a table at the same time, > >> but if a thread wants to write to a table, it must first get exclusive > >> access. During the update, all other threads that want to access this > >> particular table must wait until the update is done." > >> > >> It doesn't take very many writes before this *really* becomes a problem. > >> We're implementing memcache at work to help with this issue... > > > > Yeah, table level locking doesn't really scale well. > > Which is ironic since the top of that page says: "For large tables, table > locking is much better than row locking for most applications..." > > Which, just right off the bat, doesn't make much sense... oh well. Yeah, much of the MySQL documentation used to be that way, what with the whole "Foreign key relations are best maintained by application code" kind of stuff it was once full of. And from reading that page, one can see that InnoDB tables are still considered to be kind of the "red headed step child" of table handlers by the mysql crew. Sad, because it's the only table handler they have than can truly handle any real concurrency of reads and writes mixed together (it's a true MVCC modeled table handler).
> And from reading that page, one can see that InnoDB tables are still > considered to be kind of the "red headed step child" of table handlers > by the mysql crew. Sad, because it's the only table handler they have > than can truly handle any real concurrency of reads and writes mixed > together (it's a true MVCC modeled table handler). I was just reading something about InnoDB. I've largely ignored it myself, but basically MySQL is developing their own in-house engine because InnoDB is now owned by Oracle. And I think there's been problems with MySQL suddenly going from InnoDB to myISAM kinda out of the blue. So much for transactions, right? :) Anthony
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 12:32:53PM -0700, Tony Lausin wrote: > >[ rotfl... ] MySQL will fall over under any heavy concurrent-write > >scenario. It's conceivable that PG won't do what you need either, > >but if not I'm afraid you're going to be forced into Oracle or one > >of the other serious-money DBs. > > > > regards, tom lane > > Hi Tom, > > That's a scary idea - being forced into Oracle or Sybase. Isn't > Slashdot.org still running strongly off of MySQL? /. is also essentially read-only, or fairly close to it. The only sites I'm aware of that have gotten MySQL to scale in a more write-heavy environment are only able to do so by hand-crafting a clustering solution of some kind, so that not everything is in the same server. Livejournal is an example of this. Why would a CMS have that high an update rate anyway? I'd think it would only be somewhere between 10% and 25% DML... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 09:41:57AM -0700, Tony Lausin wrote: > Thanks for the suggestions, everyone. This is what I have so far: > > I require an open source DBMS because I want to avoid being locked > into a particular vendor, especially one that will send me a big bill. > That leaves me with MySQL, PostgreSQL (my preference), Firebird, and (disclosure: I work for a company that provides PostgreSQL support) Actually, I believe that avoiding vendor lock-in eliminates MySQL and possibly Firebird from the list. Last time I looked your only choice for MySQL support was MySQL AB. PostgreSQL on the other hand provides a number of options, with Command Prompt and Pervasive probably being the most obvious in the US (I'm not sure if any of the other commercial players offer support on community PostgreSQL). I think Sun also provides some form of support, though I'm not sure of the details. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Hi Jim, I'm settled on sticking with PostgreSQL since MySQL is just to incompatible with my needs and desires. I just wanted to be open-minded to some of the MySQL advocacy I've heard. My project is essentially a CMS, but there are features that are commonly found in social networking sites like MySpace and CampusHook. I prefer to call it a web-based BBS inspired by my Citadel days that borrows features from social networking sites and multi-user blog sites (think Slashdot, not LiveJournal or Blogger). I don't anticipate the kind of usage that a site like MySpace gets; but should users really go for the social networking features, and start hammering away at profiles with comments and updates; I'd like to know that the database can survive. I read in a few places that vacuuming on a heavily hit site can be necessary several times a day; and so that has been my biggest concern with PostgreSQL. I haven't previously used autovacuum. Regards, Anthony On 5/4/06, Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 12:32:53PM -0700, Tony Lausin wrote: > > >[ rotfl... ] MySQL will fall over under any heavy concurrent-write > > >scenario. It's conceivable that PG won't do what you need either, > > >but if not I'm afraid you're going to be forced into Oracle or one > > >of the other serious-money DBs. > > > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > That's a scary idea - being forced into Oracle or Sybase. Isn't > > Slashdot.org still running strongly off of MySQL? > > /. is also essentially read-only, or fairly close to it. The only sites > I'm aware of that have gotten MySQL to scale in a more write-heavy > environment are only able to do so by hand-crafting a clustering > solution of some kind, so that not everything is in the same server. > Livejournal is an example of this. > > Why would a CMS have that high an update rate anyway? I'd think it would > only be somewhere between 10% and 25% DML... > -- > Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com > Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 > vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 >
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:15:25PM -0700, Tony Lausin wrote: > My project is essentially a CMS, but there are features that are > commonly found in social networking sites like MySpace and CampusHook. > I prefer to call it a web-based BBS inspired by my Citadel days that > borrows features from social networking sites and multi-user blog > sites (think Slashdot, not LiveJournal or Blogger). Cool. Bonus points if you figure out a way to allow people to bring together blogs of friends that are on multiple sites with a seamless interface. > I don't anticipate the kind of usage that a site like MySpace gets; > but should users really go for the social networking features, and > start hammering away at profiles with comments and updates; I'd like > to know that the database can survive. If I had a dollar for everyone who started with MySQL because "it'll only be a small site"... > I read in a few places that vacuuming on a heavily hit site can be > necessary several times a day; and so that has been my biggest concern > with PostgreSQL. I haven't previously used autovacuum. Autovacuum is your friend. I would suggest cutting all the threshold values in half, though. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
On 4/30/06, Tony Lausin <tonylausin@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm working on a CMS which requires an open source database capable of > handling hundreds of thousands of users simultaneously, with a high > rate of database writes, and without buckling. We're talking somewhere > between nerve.com/catch27.com and xanga.com/friendster.com It's not opensource, but you may want to take a look at FrontBase http://www.frontbase.com wj
Hi Jim, I'm settled on sticking with PostgreSQL since MySQL is just too incompatible with my needs and desires. I just wanted to be open-minded to some of the MySQL advocacy I've heard. My project is essentially a CMS, but there are features that are commonly found in social networking sites like MySpace and CampusHook. I prefer to call it a web-based BBS inspired by my Citadel days that borrows features from social networking sites and multi-user blog sites (think Slashdot, not LiveJournal or Blogger). I don't anticipate the kind of usage that a site like MySpace gets; but should users really go for the social networking features, and start hammering away at profiles with comments and updates; I'd like to know that the database can survive. On 5/4/06, Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 12:32:53PM -0700, Tony Lausin wrote: > > >[ rotfl... ] MySQL will fall over under any heavy concurrent-write > > >scenario. It's conceivable that PG won't do what you need either, > > >but if not I'm afraid you're going to be forced into Oracle or one > > >of the other serious-money DBs. > > > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > That's a scary idea - being forced into Oracle or Sybase. Isn't > > Slashdot.org still running strongly off of MySQL? > > /. is also essentially read-only, or fairly close to it. The only sites > I'm aware of that have gotten MySQL to scale in a more write-heavy > environment are only able to do so by hand-crafting a clustering > solution of some kind, so that not everything is in the same server. > Livejournal is an example of this. > > Why would a CMS have that high an update rate anyway? I'd think it would > only be somewhere between 10% and 25% DML... > -- > Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com > Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 > vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 >