News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ingesting MySQL data at scale – Part 1 by Thaxll on Friday August 12, 2016 @12:15AM (#12273361)
Who do people feel the need to mention Postgres on every post talking about MySQL... It reminds me the same problem with Linux and *BSD.
Re:Ingesting MySQL data at scale – Part 1 by dump121 on Friday August 12, 2016 @01:15AM (#12273508)
They are two competing open source databases, knowing strength/weakness of each is always good. So unless the answer is `we rock, you suck`, it would be a useful info. for lots of people
Re:Ingesting MySQL data at scale – Part 1 by threeseed on Friday August 12, 2016 @06:39AM (#12274505)
PostgreSQL has been mentioned on EVERY database post for years now. And it always involve an endless amount of condescension in particular directed at those that god forbid choose to use a NoSQL database.

Everything seems to get turned into a competition despite the fact that the world have moved away from the centralised, vertically scaled database towards a more heterogenous landscape.

Re:Ingesting MySQL data at scale – Part 1 by infamouscow on Friday August 12, 2016 @12:24AM (#12273388)
What drives me mad is when people claim they choose PostgreSQL over MySQL because data integrity concerns, yet they run PostgreSQL on Linux as opposed to FreeBSD or Illumos using ZFS.
Re:Ingesting MySQL data at scale – Part 1 by dijit on Friday August 12, 2016 @05:12AM (#12274225)
Postgres' MVCC is almost like copy-on-write by itself, so anything more than a journal is overkill in any realistic scenarios.

Personally we tried ZFS with PostgreSQL and we managed to fill the WAL drive before the vacuum could clear it out with our update rate.

So we went back to XFS on the more commonly adopted (in our company); CentOS

Re:Ingesting MySQL data at scale – Part 1 by EGreg on Friday August 12, 2016 @12:40AM (#12273428)
BSD > Linux

Postgres > Mysql (in most cases)

But larger learning curve