With the recent release of MySQL cluster that includes the memcache api, and provides persistency for memcache, can anyone share the benefits of which one to choose?
My initial idea is to use couchbase as a memcache layer between the app and db.
first, as a disclosure, I'm part of the MySQL Cluster team
Speaking specifically for MySQL Cluster, there is a decent blog here that takes you through the design rationale, benefits and implementation:
http://www.clusterdb.com/mysql-cluster/scalabale-persistent-ha-nosql-memcache-storage-using-mysql-cluster/
There is also a webinar recorded last month that demonstrates how to build a social networking type service with Memcached API and MySQL Cluster (registration required):
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/on-demand-webinars/display-od-723.html
I don't have any specific comparisons with Couchbase, but I hope the resources above will be useful in helping you determine if MySQL Cluster is right for your project
Recently I had to answer the same question for myself. I wanted to pick a DB for social application that works intensively with a lot of data and many users. As you can see my needs were not expected to outline some big technical differences between these DBs - after all both are used quite often for such applications.
Anyway, I prepared some load tests based on the scenarios I was interested in. And at the end I run the tests continuously for two days on strong hardware. I would say that more or less both products showed the same amazing performance. I had some crash tests too - dumb cases where I try to eat all the resources and do "stupid" things. On these tests I had lower expectations for Couchbase but it surprised me quite positively and it actually did better job than MongoDB. So, for the needs I had, from technical and architecture perspective I did not find much differences between Couchbase and MySQL Cluster. My advice is to run some tests based on your scenarios and see for yourself.
In my case the choice at the end was based on the license agreement, the statements in the legal notice, the pricing and the community around the product - as a result I picked MySQL Cluster.
Related
I want to use aws for hosting a django application and use aws rds for database purpose. The application is kind of blog like system.
I am not able to decide which RDS I should choose over MySql or Postgres? Both price wise and performance wise according to aws pricing policy.
This can be very broad and may be opinionated , I would try to keep it short as i read it somewhere:
MySQL would be very good for any CMS Site as it works very well with it and MyISAM tables are quite nice here.
From What I read where PostgreSQL does better than MySQL:
Multi-application databases
Advanced data modelling
What Advance Data Modelling means is that PostgreSQL is far more mature at doing complex data modelling than MySQL is. It has a very mature extensible type system, a wide range of procedural languages, and a great deal of flexibility in how these languages can be plugged into existing queries.
If that wasn't enough, the fact is that you can essentially build your data model in PostgreSQL based not only on what information you are storing but what information is commonly derived from what you are storing. This makes things like not-first-normal-form actually sane to use where they are needed. Add collections and multiple inheritance in table structure and you have a very sophisticated data modelling platform, this blog would help you understand it better.
Besides the content management system market, MySQL's other major market is in applications where data is not expected to be exposed to more than one writing application at a time. This leads to a significant difference in handling data validation, etc.
In PostgreSQL validation is always equally strict. If the app expects special error treatment it had better call functions or casts to handle this explicitly.
MySQL however places the application in charge of defining the data validation rules.So while PostgreSQL allows the relational and object-relational interface to serve as a public API, it is essentially intended largely to be a private API for applications in MySQL. This is a huge difference and not readily understood by many people trying to make the choice. This leads to major differences in application design.
MySQL is a data storage and reporting solution for your application.
PostgreSQL is a data centralization, modelling, and reporting solution
for your organization. The two are remarkably different.
Now coming to Second Question based on pricing as you can see from MySQL Pricing Page and PostgreSQL Pricing Page MySQL is bit cheaper than PostgrSQL , reading on the answer you can make informed decision what would be best for you.
Hope this Helps!
I'm gonna offer you a 3rd option: Aurora - try it. It's cheaper than those 2 and is MySQL compatible.
This article may be of help to you when deciding.
For simple blog-like thingie I'd go with MySQL (or Aurora MySQL compatible version)
For data-critical and highly relational solutions I might also consider Postgres (Aurora)
What's the advantage of using Google's Cloud SQL offering versus installing/maintaining instances yourself?
It seems to me that most of the features they list can be implemented fairly trivially by experienced mysql admins. Am I wrong?
CLARIFICATION: I am not asking which product is better. I am trying to understand what features Cloud SQL adds on top of self-hosted MySQL installations.
You can look at these types of questions from several angles: money, maintenance effort and quality of service.
Money-wise there is probably not that much of a difference, although it would not hurt to make the calculations for your usage scenario just to be sure.
In terms of maintenance-effort you are probably better of with using the Cloud SQL since most mundane tasks (such as creating back-ups and upgrading versions) are already handled for you.
Depending on your context, the quality of service of a 'hand-maintained' instance might be good enough, but if you need to support multiple sites then it quickly becomes a nuisance to create proper replications across the world (which from the looks of it is a standard feature of Cloud SQL).
Overall I would say it is greatly a matter of convenience.
I used to build Ruby on Rails apps with MySQL.
MongoDB currently become more and more famous and I am now starting to give it a try.
The problem is, I don't know the underlying theory of how MongoDB is working (am using mongoid gem if it matter)
So I would like to have a comparison on the performance between using MySQL+ActiveRecord and model generated by mongoid gem, could anyone help me to figure it out?
The article entitled: What the heck are you actually using NoSQL for? does a very good job at presenting the pros and cons of using NoSQL.
Edit: Also read http://blog.fatalmind.com/2011/05/13/choosing-nosql-for-the-right-reason/ blog post too
Re-edit: I found some recent material (published in 2014) on this topic that I consider to be relevant: What’s left of NoSQL?
I don't know much of the underlying theory. But this is the advice I got: only use MongoDB if you run it across multiple servers; that's when it'll shine. As far as I understand, the NoSQL movement appeared in no small part due to the pain of load-balancing relational databases across multiple servers. So if you're hosting your application on no more than one server, MySQL would be the preferred choice.
The good people over at the Doctrine project recently wrote a quite useful blog post on the subject.
From what I have read so far... here is my take on it.
Standard SQL trades lower performance for feature richness... i.e. it allows you to do Joins and Transactions across data sets (tables/collections if you will) among other things.
This allows a application developer to push some of the application complexity into the database layer. This has it's advantages of not having to worry about data integrity and the rest of the ACID properties by the application by depending upon proven technology.
The lack of extreme scalability works for pretty much all projects as long as one can manage to keep the application working within expected time limits, which may sometimes result in having to purchase high performance/expensive relational database systems.
On the other hand, Mongo DB, deliberately excludes much of the inherent complexity associated with relational databases, there by allowing for better scalable performance.
This approach forces the application developer to re-architect the application to work around the lack of relational features... which in and itself is a good thing, but the effort involved is generally only worth it if you have the scalability requirements. Please note that with MongoDB depending upon the data requirements w.r.t ACID properties, the application will have to step up and handle as necessary.
Currently have approximately 2000 simultaneouse connections. We average approximately 425 reads and writes per second. We have a read to write ration of 3:1. All of our tables are myisam. Can we expect better or worse performance when we go from mysql 4.1.22 to 5.0?
There's no way for anyone here to tell you without the schema, queries and test data.
Why not setup a dev environment on 5.0 and testing it out?
The main concern should be that the 5.0 Information Schemas, are a HUGE vulnerability and can be used to very easily gain access to the SQL server from remote locations simply by printing off the schema using injection will let an unwanted viewer, view all of the tables and capitalize off the knowledge to get passwords using the same schema for its columns.
The MySQL source tree includes a set of benchmark tests written as Perl scripts. See The MySQL Benchmark Suite for some information. You can download the source distribution for MySQL 5.0.91 at the archives.
Source distribution of MySQL 4.1 doesn't seem to be easily available anymore. You might have to check it old sources from LaunchPad unless you can find a copy of an old source distribution elsewhere on the internet.
However, the comparison that these benchmarks show is only of general interest. It may be irrelevant to how your application performs. For instance, your usage of the database may not take advantage of some performance improvements in MySQL 5.0, but it may run into some regressions in MySQL 5.0 that were necessary.
The only way to get an answer that is relevant to your application is to try the new software with a test instance of your application, using a sample of data that is a realistic model of the type and volume of data your application typically deals with. As #BenS says, no one on a site like StackOverflow can give an answer specific to your application.
You say in a comment that you're very concerned about performance, but if you don't have an instance of your application and database that you can run tests on, you aren't doing the work necessary to satisfy this concern.
I would strongly suggest moving straight to 5.1.45 with Innodb Support. Percona provides an excellent version with XtraDB that provides a number of performance related improvements. Moving off of your MyISAM tables and onto Innodb will provide a huge performance increase in almost all cases. If you are going to burn the QA/Testing time to move, do a full move now, not a half-way step.
The main bottle neck of a web server locates usually in the database,in my case,MYSQL.
More specifically,fulltext search and master-slave replication.
And sphinx is a probable solution for fulltext-search,so master-slave replication is the
final pain in ass.
Is it possible to boost the performance significantly with the technology of Cloud Coumputing,
for instance,by services offered by Amazon?
Just a wild guess!
EDIT:what about MySQL and Google App Engine?
Of course. MySQL Enterprise for Amazon EC2 is one MySQL package for Amazon EC2. See also Setting Up MySQL on an EC2 AMI and this tutorial/blog post.
EDIT: App Engine is higher-level than EC2 and is really designed for BigTable/GQL only. However, look at approcket, which allows replicating between AppEngine and MySQL.
You may want to be careful with just switching your web app to use an external data base (ie amazon, et.al.), you want to understand where exactly is your bottleneck or you may end up introducing more performance problems... Remember that by going to an external DB, you're introducing more latency into each query compared to a local (box or net) query.
If your problem is performance, try to find out exactly where the problem lies first, and then you may want to explore other options like query optimization, caching, etc.
Possible - for sure. See for example, xeround, rightscale, Amazon and phpfog. There are probably at least a few more with more to come. They come in varying degrees of "freeness" (How's that for a made up word?) too.
The question, it seems to me, will be performance and reliability.
Who knows, localhost may become a thing of the past for development.