Database.

http://howfuckedismydatabase.com/

Find out here

Yeah saw it earlier, was speaking to the guy who made it and he mentioned it.

I don't even know what all those things are, but it's still really funny.

Ehh, I didn't get it at all xD

Anyone who uses postgreSQL is retarded, the benefits are minimal at best and are far outweighed by the drawbacks when compared to MySQL or MSSQL.

That.

I had no idea either, but was still cool.

Are you serious? PostgreSQL is by far the better option compared to MySQL, as long as you're not using the piece of shit slony.

Regardless, as long as you're not using slony, PgSQL is still more than fine. It has far better scalability and integrity than MySQL. Try running a MySQL db with thousands of concurrent users, it will all go down in flames.

But I wouldn't say that unless they were both getting equal as time goes by - that's not the point. PgSQL has a lot brighter future because it's not owned by anyone, whereas Oracle owns MySQL (who used to be owned by MySQL AB, who got bought by Sun, who got bought by Oracle) and the future doesn't look very bright.

edit:

To tell a story, at a I worked at we had a moderately sized database for our two db slaves, each running slony. Now, the DB wasn't used for anything critical - it was just for storing invoice data from several different companies, mostly for internal uses. Since slony is mostly used for duplicating data - much like RAID is for hard drives - the two slaves were backup servers.

This one time the place hosting a slave (the master and other slave being at another place) was destroyed in a fire. No worries - we got the backups on the other slave! Well, that was until we realized the backup server wasn't doing its job, there was some dumbfuck error in slony (which is the backup system), so we had no recent backups, which meant we had to use the primary server. We had to clone a 30 million row db in pretty much a time that would have been yesterday. The network and server load was so high we almost had to close the whole server and tell people to stop using it.

For small uses like this you could as well be using SQLite and not face data integrity issues. But for any large site I would stay far, far away from MySQL.

Ane, what have you been smoking? I have seen PostgreSQL databases struggle with 20 connections, whereas my current MySQL cluster regularly handles >500 concurrent connections with ease. Also some of the biggest sites including Facebook, Wikipedia and Google (not search) use and praise MySQL and the worlds largest SQL database uses MySQL. Touché.

Also, Oracle has been pretty much banned from interfering with MySQL on anti-trust grounds, so while it is now partly funded by Oracle, it has no say in it's running.

</rant>

I call bullshit.

Ok, I admit it wasn't an optimal setup, but even MySQL can do better than that when sub-optimal.

I doubt it. But 20 concurrent users isn't really good to measure anything, once you reach a 5000+ number you'll see radical differences.

From what I've read Facebook doesn't rely only on MySQL - it uses Cassandra to manage all the nodes and heavy usage of memcached to keep it fast (and a lot of other systems). Google built BigTable for serious things, as far as I recall they use MySQL for minor things only. Also for Wikipedia you need to note that while it's very popular there isn't a lot of concurred read-writing done - only a small fraction of the actual DB commits are write-access. Mostly you're just dealing with reads which MySQL does just fine.

I've heard of Mac vs PC vs Linux, but never PostgreSQL vs MySQL.

Takes geekery to a whole new level

Nerds.

^THIS.