On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Michal Bielicki <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am 13.09.2010 um 18:13 schrieb Matt White: > >>>> Douglas Hubler 09/13/10 10:35 AM >>> >>>> >>>>MongoDB would not replace the configuration system's database, currently >>>> using postgres. > > Whats the disadvantage to moving these DB's to Postgres like the > configuration database? That would unifiy the databases into a single > engine. Postgres so far has proven to be stable and relativly quick....and > theres a fair bit of tuning that can be had for postgres thats not done on > the iso now. > > +1. Postgresql never failed me and we run a telco for a customer where > postgresql is the backend and the life cdr database for > 4000 lines. No > issues. I don't understand why we should use anything else.
* postgres is best at queries for complex object relations, benefits of strict schema adherence, atomic commits (not of which we need in this case) * mongodb is optimized for replication in a wide variety of setups and storing simple data, normal mode of storing data using UUID instead of sequential records IDs that conflict in master/master setups. If what is using FreeDB now was originally using postgres and was using replication, i don't thinkg wouldn't recommend we change it, but we have to change it so mongodb is a great choice. There are a lot back-and-forth on RDBM v.s. Cluster DB and even funny videos. I think for *our current needs*, mongodb is a clear winner. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/
