Best Database?

The 2.0.x discussion forum has been locked; this will remain read-only. The 3.0.x discussion forum has been renamed phpBB Discussion.
Billabong2k2
Registered User
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:52 pm

Best Database?

Post by Billabong2k2 »

Hey I have the option of MS SQL or MySQL what do you guys think?
Kanuck
Former Team Member
Posts: 2791
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 9:33 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Kanuck »

Personally I'm a MySQL supporter. How big will this site be?
Kanuck
Former phpBB.com team member
Billabong2k2
Registered User
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:52 pm

Post by Billabong2k2 »

Well currently we have 300 members with over 12,000 posts...

I'm just really wondering whats the best serverwise.. because I get a 100mb SQL server... so If thats better I'll use it..

Could I do that? because my forum is currently using mysql.. I can switch right?
Kylecool
Registered User
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 3:51 am
Location: Southern California, U.S.A! GO USA!
Contact:

Post by Kylecool »

I would use MySql. It's amazingly fast, and I personally feel it is the best. Try it, you'll be amazed. It really rocks man!

-Kyle
VACATION UNTIL june 29TH or 30th. :)
Billabong2k2
Registered User
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:52 pm

Post by Billabong2k2 »

well I am using mysql at the moment
User avatar
Fireman-x
Registered User
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 3:19 am

Post by Fireman-x »

I don't think there is a database that DOESN'T beat MS SQL's butt. However, once you hit a larger site status, and begin getting a lot more traffic, you might want to think about moving to Sybase or PostgreSQL.
hackie
Registered User
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 6:54 pm
Contact:

Post by hackie »

Fireman-x wrote: I don't think there is a database that DOESN'T beat MS SQL's butt. However, once you hit a larger site status, and begin getting a lot more traffic, you might want to think about moving to Sybase or PostgreSQL.


Again, that's not true, phpbb will long BECOME the problem before mysql does, so there is no reason not to use MySQL for phpbb.

If your mysql *IS* becoming a problem, then you need to learn how to set it up.
Developer of FUDforum
http://fud.prohost.org
theFinn
Founder and ex-Contributor
Posts: 1767
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 7:58 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Contact:

Post by theFinn »

Not entirly true. MySQL has problems with large amounts of concurrent connections. phpBB with MySQL and 300 simultainous connections won't run as well as phpBB with PostgreSQL and 300 simultanious connections simply because Postgres handles it better then MySQL does.

We saw that when we opened this site up. We had 300 users on line at once, the problem wasn't phpBB it was that MySQL couldn't handle that many connections at once on our server. Any MySQL based forum would have had the same trouble as phpBB :D

When you're decideing on a database the things you have to look at most are server specs and number of users you have at one time. If you're going to have a large number of users on at one time you'll probably want to look into one of the other DBMS's such as Postgres or MSSQL (if you can afford it).
James 'theFinn' Atkinson
Founder & ex-Contributor
http://www.thefinn.net
erossetto
Registered User
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 12:59 pm
Location: .ar

Post by erossetto »

theFinn wrote: Not entirly true. MySQL has problems with large amounts of concurrent connections. phpBB with MySQL and 300 simultainous connections won't run as well as phpBB with PostgreSQL and 300 simultanious connections simply because Postgres handles it better then MySQL does.

We saw that when we opened this site up. We had 300 users on line at once, the problem wasn't phpBB it was that MySQL couldn't handle that many connections at once on our server. Any MySQL based forum would have had the same trouble as phpBB :D

When you're decideing on a database the things you have to look at most are server specs and number of users you have at one time. If you're going to have a large number of users on at one time you'll probably want to look into one of the other DBMS's such as Postgres or MSSQL (if you can afford it).

There is a nice article about this on phpBuilder.com

http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20 ... int_mode=1
^^^^
hackie
Registered User
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 6:54 pm
Contact:

Post by hackie »

theFinn wrote: Not entirly true. MySQL has problems with large amounts of concurrent connections. phpBB with MySQL and 300 simultainous connections won't run as well as phpBB with PostgreSQL and 300 simultanious connections simply because Postgres handles it better then MySQL does.

We saw that when we opened this site up. We had 300 users on line at once, the problem wasn't phpBB it was that MySQL couldn't handle that many connections at once on our server. Any MySQL based forum would have had the same trouble as phpBB :D

When you're decideing on a database the things you have to look at most are server specs and number of users you have at one time. If you're going to have a large number of users on at one time you'll probably want to look into one of the other DBMS's such as Postgres or MSSQL (if you can afford it).


Ok, but what was the problem with MySQL? was eat eating up CPU? was it simply sleeping? saying It's not fast enough is quite pointless, unless you idenitfy the reason why!
Developer of FUDforum
http://fud.prohost.org
User avatar
Fireman-x
Registered User
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 3:19 am

Post by Fireman-x »

This has been explained by me in several posts now. It has to do with the fact that MySQL locks the ENTIRE TABLE when it performs a query, as opposed to a single row. It's common sense if you think about it. Now PLEASE quit trying to spread nonsense about how phpBB has some kind of scalability problem, when it has already been proven by many other places that MySQL won't scale well beyond a certain point.
Wert
Former Team Member
Posts: 3677
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 8:33 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA
Name: Chris Aguilar

Post by Wert »

Ok,

This guy "hackie" is obviously here to promote his own board *fudforums* and is going out of his way to denigrate phpBB.

He wants everyone to think phpBB has scalability problems that *presumably* he'll claim his board doesn't have.

Why give him free advertising for his forum here at phpbb.com?
Chris Aguilar - AKA "Wert"
User avatar
Fireman-x
Registered User
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 3:19 am

Post by Fireman-x »

Good point. P.S. if you REALLY want a good place to find out the best forum for you, head over to http://www.dbforums.com or http://www.sitepointforums.com and ask the folks there. You'll find actual professionals, rather than "professionals".
hackie
Registered User
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 6:54 pm
Contact:

Post by hackie »

Fireman-x wrote: This has been explained by me in several posts now. It has to do with the fact that MySQL locks the ENTIRE TABLE when it performs a query, as opposed to a single row. It's common sense if you think about it. Now PLEASE quit trying to spread nonsense about how phpBB has some kind of scalability problem, when it has already been proven by many other places that MySQL won't scale well beyond a certain point.


If row level locking was your problem, you wouldn't have been seeing load go skyhigh... unless the problem is somewhere else, as a process wating on a mutex doesn't generate much load (unless it's a horrible implemented poller/spinlock). But your load does go skyhigh right? with what, did you say 40 connections? mysql eats up your entire CPU right?
Developer of FUDforum
http://fud.prohost.org
User avatar
Fireman-x
Registered User
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 3:19 am

Post by Fireman-x »

I'm not talking about my load, and I've never mentioned having problems with my server. I'm referring to common knowledge that MySQL runs into scalability problems.

You never did tell me how you managed to get 1000 concurrent connections on MySQL.

Here's two quotes from the afore mentioned PHPBuilder article above:
The most interesting thing about my test results was to see how much of a load Postgres could withstand before giving any errors. In fact, Postgres seemed to scale 3 times higher than MySQL before giving any errors at all. MySQL begins collapsing at about 40-50 concurrent connections, whereas Postgres handily scaled to 120 before balking. My guess is, that Postgres could have gone far past 120 connections with enough memory and CPU.

Another interesting point was that MySQL crumbles faster in the "10% insert" test described above. Research reveals that MySQL locks the entire table when an insert occurs, while Postgres has a pretty nifty "better than row-level locking" feature. This difference quickly causes MySQL to pile up concurrent connections and thus collapse. The same is true if you are doing a large select out of a database while another process is inserting into that table. Postgres is completely unfazed, while MySQL piles up connections until it falls apart like a house of cards.


Now, it's important to point out that this article was done 2 years ago and since then PostgreSQL and MySQL have both released new versions which do indeed scale better. HOWEVER, MySQL (talk to anybody with a LARGE web site that runs MySQL) does NOT scale well still. That's simply a fact of life, due to the way it works. And I'm not talking about CPU load, I'm talking about how long it takes to run a query, and what happens when your queries start building up and the daemon crashes. I've seen no proof that MySQL will scale beyond a fairly low - medium number of connections (50 - 100) all performing mixed SELECT and INSERT/UPDATE queries. I have however, see PLENTY of information that outright states that MySQL cannot hold its weight in an enterprise/large user base environment. Now PLEASE, show us some hard data before you continue hackie.
Last edited by Fireman-x on Sun Apr 14, 2002 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Locked

Return to “2.0.x Discussion”