If what they wanted was a Schemaless, sharded data store, then perhaps Postgres isn’t the best or most fair comparison. Also the claim of issues with table corruption seems strange / unbelievable— I have used Postgres as my daily driver for data (at scale)!for 12 years now and yet to see it. But again, I haven’t got same scale requirement as Uber.
From the article:<p>> <i>MySQL’s replication architecture means that if bugs do cause table corruption, the problem is unlikely to cause a catastrophic failure. Replication happens at the logical layer, so an operation like rebalancing a B-tree can never cause an index to become corrupted. A typical MySQL replication issue is the case of a statement being skipped (or, less frequently, applied twice). This may cause data to be missing or invalid, but it won’t cause a database outage.</i><p>So, data might be invalid or missing, but it will not cause a database outage...
A couple of years ago we did a load testing comparison between MySQL and Postgres for our Java-based project. MySQL throughput was 5x better. I'm not sure if it was JDBC driver issue or just database configuration wasn't perfect, but MySQL worked much better for us.
Although this is an old article (maybe even posted here earlier), curious to know how's does pg10 or upcoming pg11 serve / address those issues mentioned....
Maybe it's just me but I find this article has the following TL;DR: we are going against recommendations and common practices and postgres doesn't work well.
Since I started programming, I have always used MySQL because honestly I think it is the best DB I have used because it has great software support and usability.<p>I have tried Postgres and while I have no issues with it, I usually go with MySQL if I have a choice because I see no real reason to switch out something I know and like.<p>Is there any real reason for a person like me to use postgres or another alternative instead of MySQL?