

Scalability: PostgreSQL vs MySQL - chimi
http://tweakers.net/reviews/649/7

======
mvip
Yeah, a lot of things have changed since 2006. It would however been
interesting to see an updated post with current versions of both MySQL and
PostgreSQL.

------
purplezky
2006 called, it claims it's copyright for old stories

------
3amOpsGuy
For small use cases, e.g. Hacking on a developer workstation, MySQL has
historically been a lot easier to get started with. No need for Cygwin which
used to be the case for postgres, MySql has a GUI installer, mysql has a ton
of online help resources, no mental drain to deal with up front - how often
should I run a Postgres vacuum? How should I schedule it?

When it comes to scaling up though, Postgres has in my experience, always just
worked. This has been true for years. The documentation is excellent and the
community extremely helpful and knowledgable.

------
taligent
As I posted in the other thread. These companies (among others) use MySQL:

Facebook, Twitter, Yelp, LinkedIn, Flickr, Amazon, Craigslist, eBay, Etsy,
Google, Groupon, Ticketmaster, Yahoo, 37Signals, DHL, Dropbox, Evernote, UPS,
Kayak, LastMinute, Orbitz, Continental, Mint, Quora, Tumblr, Techcrunch,
Slashdot, NYT, NBC, Reuters, Wotif, Zappos, Wikipedia, Youtube.

So that should calm any doubts about MySQL's ability to scale. Twitter and
Facebook even have their own forks which are tailored to their individual use
cases.

~~~
chimi
That's not the point.

More to the point, those companies use lots of other software products,
memcache among them, to improve the scalability of MySQL. It could be
possible, if the numbers in the article are an indicator, that these companies
are spending a lot more money on hardware than they would if they were using a
more scalable database like PostgreSQL. They also may spend less money on
engineering time if they didn't have to configure and manage all the software
needed to get MySQL to scale.

