It must be tough for the business, as more and more web development has fallen in love with PostgreSQL. While the support business for PostgreSQL exists, I am not sure if they can get similar profit margins / earning multipliers as early 2000 software businesses, even open source ones.
Developers and on HN sure, but the web runs on LAMP (mostly WP). Also, it is sure possible to optimise your postgres setup, but we had some scaling/sharding niche cases where mysql worked and performed out of the box and postgres was (is) struggling; I am not very interested wasting my life trying to get it to work while mysql just works without any tweaking (for that case: other cases we still pick mysql as it always performs the same or better than postgres for our cases; it doesn't have all the features pg has, but we don't need those (yet)). I have not seen the reverse yet.
People have been using PostgreSQL for decades for web stuff. I think the first time I used it was around 2003 or so. The project goes back to 1996 (and even that was based on previous code going back to 1982).
I'm not saying PostgreSQL is perfect or the best choice for everything. That's obviously stupid. But claiming it's a "hype" is not a serious comment.
> But claiming it's a "hype" is not a serious comment.
Maybe you're missing the context (it's a chain of replies)? I never said PostgreSQL was bad or that people shouldn't use it.
The original comment I was responding to inferred that "every web developer" was now using PostgreSQL and that part is definitely due to the "hype" - whether social media, youtube or blogs, etc. Well there's also the who's providing a "free" database...
> People have been using PostgreSQL for decades for web stuff.
Sure, but not "every" so much so that it should hurt MySQL / MariaDB at all.
> That's obviously stupid.
That's the point. There are influencers and hypers going around and responding PostgreSQL like an an auto answering machine and then many that just believe it.
> The original comment I was responding to inferred that "every web developer" was now using PostgreSQL
No one used to word "every'. It merely stated that "more" web dev stuff uses PostgreSQL, which is not the same as "every" at all. You "inferred" that word from your negativity, cynicism, and some sort of psychological need to spread your toxic bile.
Maybe you have misconception about the scalability of PostgreSQL.
> According to Instagram representatives, the number of platform users exceeded 2 billion last year. This is quarter of all humanity. This mass of people publishes nearly 50 million photos a day. Football star Cristiano Ronaldo has over 600 million followers; singer Ariana Grande has over 380 million. Talk about huge databases!
> Instagram uses many RDBMSs, but PostgreSQL and Cassandra were chosen for the main tasks. The goal was to reduce delay and ensure users can easily and comfortably use the application.
PostgreSQL is also the most popular database in StackOverflow surveys.
"popular with developers" is not the same as actually used in real world scenarios. Show me a real world example of pgsql failover and re-mastering that does not involve a restore and not editing configs. How basic? Not even sybase ASE server needs that. Ingres made change in the 80's, everyone else copied it and built on it. Except postgres. It's the Minix of databases.
Show me any proof, that anything of scale is happening in postgresql. All that big facebook and apple data is happening in cassandra (and foundationdb for apple).
Netflix has the same pattern, MySQL and Cassandra. Like the days of yore of keeping big data in file systems or tapes and blob indexes in a RDBMS.
> All that big facebook and apple data is happening in cassandra (and foundationdb for apple)
Not sure about Instagram, but I can tell you with complete confidence that Facebook proper (meaning specifically Facebook, not the rest of Meta) moved away from Cassandra well over a decade ago. They originally used Cassandra for FB messages / Messenger, but soon migrated to HBase and then over to MySQL / MyRocks.
