Hi!
> 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.
Their main stock of trade is selling ads, and even though nobody will
ever admit what they are running in publicly
> 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 th
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>> P.P.S. Anyone running PG in production on a big website?
>
> Yep. Course, you might also want to define "big"
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
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Great
>> , so we can close the thread and agree that we'll move everything
>> over to Oracle in the near future. :)
>
> InnoDB has been part of Oracle since 2005... ;-)
And bought MySQL this past April, right?
Maybe they'll rename
Hi!
> Great
> , so we can close the thread and agree that we'll move everything
> over to Oracle in the near future. :)
InnoDB has been part of Oracle since 2005... ;-)
Domas
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wik
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 16:17, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Great, so we can close the thread and agree that we'll move everything
> over to Oracle in the near future. :)
Oh yeah! And rewrite MediaWiki in PL/SQL while we're at it!
Christopher
___
Wiki
On 11/25/2009 10:13 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
>> I'm probably done myself. I just wanted to point out a few factual
>> errors in Mr. Mituzas' email. I'm not so interested in the grey-area
>> "which is better, which is worse" debate.
>
> my emails are also just because someone said "any reason not
> I'm probably done myself. I just wanted to point out a few factual
> errors in Mr. Mituzas' email. I'm not so interested in the grey-area
> "which is better, which is worse" debate.
my emails are also just because someone said "any reason not to... "
and "it should provide better performance
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> I'll resist the urge to say too much more on this thread right now, and
> go back to watching from the sidelines.
I'm probably done myself. I just wanted to point out a few factual
errors in Mr. Mituzas' email. I'm not so interested
Domas points out:
> Which would make sense if no other queries are being ran :) With PG
> though you can define an index on smaller subset, may be better than
> partitioning.
Exactly - this is a perfect use case for partial indexes, not for
partitioning. The MW Postgres schema is already using som
Hi!!!
> It'd make sense if most of your queries used one partition or the
> other, and not both. Kind of like Wikipedia's history/current tables,
Are you talking about MediaWiki 1.4 schema, that we got rid off back
in 2005?
> Not in this case. You want to physically move the data so you can
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Please read my comment over again: "I can't imagine this is a query
>> you want to run over and over again. If it is, you'd probably want to
>> use partitioning."
>
> Which would make sense if no other queries are being ran :)
It'd
[Sorry if this is posted twice, I tried to post via gmane but the
message didn't show up after 16 hours]
Hi all,
texvc currently generates math images with a density of 120 dpi. This
value is hard coded.
I'm attaching a patch which allows one to change that value by passing
an additional density
13 matches
Mail list logo
