zlacker

[return to "The part of Postgres we hate the most: Multi-version concurrency control"]
1. mmaund+uo[view] [source] 2023-04-26 19:06:22
>>andren+(OP)
I must admit as a web practitioner since 1994 I have a bit of an issue with this:

> In the 2000s, the conventional wisdom selected MySQL because rising tech stars like Google and Facebook were using it. Then in the 2010s, it was MongoDB because non-durable writes made it “webscale“. In the last five years, PostgreSQL has become the Internet’s darling DBMS. And for good reasons!

Different DB's, different strengths and it's not a zero sum came as implied. MySQL was popular before Google was born - we used it heavily at eToys in the 90s for massive transaction volume and replacing it with Oracle was one of the reasons for the catastrophic failure of eToys circa 2001. MongoDB gained traction not because it's an alternative to MySQL or PostgreSQL. And PostgreSQL's marketshare today is on a par with Mongo and both are dwarfed by MySQL which IMO is the true darling of web DB's given it's global popularity.

◧◩
2. hodges+y91[view] [source] 2023-04-26 23:38:44
>>mmaund+uo
> A non-trivial component to MySQL popularity was that easy installation

...Along with replication and being joined with the hip to PHP. As to installation, there was a point in time in the early 2000s where you could sudo to root, type 'mysql' and be talking to a live MySQL on most Linux distros that I used. No wonder a lot of people defaulted to it.

◧◩◪
3. Exotic+vs3[view] [source] 2023-04-27 16:10:42
>>hodges+y91
Yes, replication. MySQL made it dead easy to have DB clusters in minutes.

I'd wish PostgreSQL would have as simple when it comes to replication and failover like MySQL does. It's always a pain when switching masters back and forth.

[go to top]