> Top 10? Top 20? Because I did a quick count a while back and found > at least six of the top ten used MySQL in some capacity. And two of > the remaining four were owned by Microsoft. :) I'm no DBA, but > that suggests to me that MySQL is pretty suitable for large websites, > compared to the competition.
I don't think anyone is saying that MySQL is not suitable for large websites. However, the reasons why top websites (and non-top websites) are using a particular piece of technology is usually far more complex an answer than "best technology" or even "good technology". Exhibit A: IIS. > So I'm curious about this, actually. You'd think sites like Google > and Yahoo! would be smart enough and have enough resources to use the > best tools available. They do. Google ditched all existing database and built their own system to handle their main stock and trade. For some things, they use MySQL, albeit a modified one. Yahoo uses PostgreSQL (again, a heavily modified one): http://www.informationweek.co/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207801579 Keep in mind if popularity alone was a good criteria, we'd all be <strike>happily</strike> using Windows on our desktops. If all that mattered was technical superiority, we'd be running BeOS. :) Frankly, the choice of using PHP as the language for MediaWiki has probably caused more problems over the years than the choice of database backend. :) -- Greg Sabino Mullane [email protected] End Point Corporation PGP Key: 0x14964AC8
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
