Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
This is a very important discussion, IMHO so, and I know I'm at least partially responsible, lets try to keep it polite. OK? > On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 23:43 -0500, Mark Woodward wrote: > ... >> Like any high performance product, if you never push it or never compare >> it, you won't notice the difference. A Porsche doesn't feel much >> different than a Volkswagen sitting in a garage. >> >> MySQL does not support SQL well enough to create really efficient >> queries. MySQL's query analyzer does not do a very good job at mapping a >> query to an access plan. When the amount of data you wish to access is >> negligible these things are also negligible. When the amount of data is >> non-trivial, MySQL is catastrophic. >> >> After that, MySQL's performance in a high volume site is abysmal. As >> long as it is read-only, you are fine. If you start adding table >> updates, inserts, or deletes MySQL's performance profile crumbles. Why >> do you think you see so many "Can't access database" messages from MySQL >> sites that have been slashdotted? > > It never cease to amaze me about the bad claims of MySQL performance. I > work at a company that typically has 30,000 - 50,000 simultaneous users > on their site in a social network setting. High reads, high writes, on > MySQL 4.x. Performance is great.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |