| 1 |
On 2 Mar 2010, at 17:07, walt wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 03/02/2010 04:23 AM, Arttu V. wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 3/2/10, walt<w41ter@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> This article was a big surprise to me. Am I the last one to hear |
| 6 |
>>> about this |
| 7 |
>>> stuff? |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10461670-16.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20 |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> If you're expecting a discussion then perhaps you'd care to narrow it |
| 12 |
>> down a bit: which part of the article are we expected to feel |
| 13 |
>> surprised about? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I was surprised that three major social networking sites have dumped |
| 16 |
> MySQL (but now the article says only two sites). I've also not heard |
| 17 |
> of the "NoSQL" movement before, and I'm curious to know what's |
| 18 |
> motivating |
| 19 |
> it. Maybe nobody trusts Oracle? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I read the other day that Facebook have NOT dropped MySQL - they |
| 22 |
remain committed to it - but that they use NoSQL technologies for some |
| 23 |
of their queries as it is more scalable. This seems to concur with an |
| 24 |
update to the article, which not everyone may have seen. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Unless they are using closed-source modules to MySQL (do these exist?) |
| 27 |
the Oracle situation probably would not worry such large companies are |
| 28 |
Facebook & Twatter. They are big enough to support OSS MySQL on their |
| 29 |
own. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Stroller. |
Archives