|
|
|
|
|
|
by madhadron
2455 days ago
|
|
|
> You say that FB is using MySQL because "changing is basically impractical", but also say MyRocks "provided major wins", which seems to be a contradiction. I think I must not be expressing myself clearly. 3+ year projects involving a large number of teams to get back to where you started are impractical. That's what migrating to PostgreSQL would be. Perhaps I should have written "switching from MySQL to PostgreSQL would be impractical"? |
|
|
* `dezzeus said MySQL was better for read-intensive workloads, Postgres better for mixed read/write
* I replied saying there are a number of huge social networks with insane write rates, which is contrary proof against that claim. (Having personally spent most of the past decade working on massive-scale MySQL at several social networks / UGC sites, this topic is near and dear to my heart...)
* You replied saying, iiuc, that FB is only using MySQL for historical reasons and difficulty of switching. (IMO, your initial comment was tangential to the original topic of comparative read vs write perf anyway. Regardless of why FB is using MySQL, factually they are an example of extremely high write rate, previously via InnoDB for many years. That said, I wasn't the person who downvoted your comment.)
* I replied saying that's inaccurate, as FB demonstrably does have the resources and talent to switch to another DB if there was a compelling reason, and furthermore MySQL+MyRocks provides a combination of feature set + compression levels that other databases (including Postgres) simply cannot match at this time. At FB's scale, this translates to absolutely massive cost savings, meaning that MySQL+MyRocks is a better choice for FB for technical and business reasons rather than just historical reasons or difficulty of switching.
I may have misunderstood, but it definitely felt like your original comments were throwing shade at MySQL, and/or publicly stating historically inaccurate reasons for why FB is currently using MySQL.