|
|
|
|
|
by tristan_juricek
5929 days ago
|
|
Uh, using language like "bottom-feeder RDBMS" and saying that an engineering team is using it "horribly incorrectly on clearly comically deficient hardware" makes this article highly biased, and trollish. It's pretty clear that this guy things Digg is a bunch of idiot engineers - I mean, why else allude to "rudimentary comp. sci. knowledge"? These articles might have a central point, but when it's surrounded by a bunch of opinion, it like watching TV news (e.g., Fox News). The real information gets drowned out. |
|
Digg's description of their entire setup seems a bit unusual -- from how they've defined their tables to their query methods. It seems at least somewhat likely that they were not making optimal use of their technology.
I'd be curious what the traffic/content difference between Digg and Stackoverflow is. Stackoverflow uses an architecture very similar to what Forbes proposes here and they have plenty of capacity on rather unremarkable hardware.