On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 06:10:29PM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote: > For elementary or trivial purposes, MySQL's speed makes it worth it. > Especially for webstats.
perhaps. it's a matter of preference. i'd rather sacrifice a little speed and gain a lot in flexibility and reliability....and gain all of that speed loss (and sometimes more) back by smart use of the available features. there are other factors in overall performance than just raw speed. to illustrate the principle with arbitrary (made up) figures, being 20% faster doesn't help much if you have to do twice as much work to get the same job done - you end up taking 60% more time to do the job. working smarter can end up being a lot faster than just working faster. another thing to consider is that mysql's locking of the table during any select operation really sucks and kills performance...can't write to the table when any select query is being run. > If you have even a moderately busy site, the log files can get > enormous. yep. in mysql, that means running a select query on the table will lock the table for a long time. > In a piping situation, a slow database could even slow down the web > server. i don't see how. apache just sends the log data out to the pipe, it doesn't wait for the pipe program to commit the record to the database. as far as delaying apache goes, it's probably less of a delay than writing it to a text file. i haven't looked at the source, but i'd assume that apache checks for pipe closed and other obvious error conditions, but there's not really a lot else that it can do....it passes the data on to the pipe and from that point on, it's the pipe's responsibility to do something with the data. craig -- craig sanders
