[development] One-to-one tables considered harmful
larry at garfieldtech.com
Mon Jun 4 02:08:16 UTC 2007
On Sunday 03 June 2007, Moshe Weitzman wrote:
> > I think we're talking at cross purposes. :-) I'm not saying "feh, big
> > sites", or that we shouldn't consider retuning how we structure the
> > database schema. I'm saying that optimizing for big, dedicated hosts at
> > the expense of the $20/month hosts is a losing proposition. It sounded
> > like one could easily interpret your "screw table-level-locking setups"
> > comment that way, which I believe would be a very bad way to go.
> David didn't say that - *you are now saying that*. When you retort
> something that wasn't actually said, you create fuzzy conversation.
> David has been lucid here, lets not introduce fuzz.
OK, either I'm not saying this well or people are really misinterpreting me.
From the original post: "screw scalability if the database running Drupal
doesn't support row-level locking."
I am saying that we should not take that to an extreme of ignoring
single-server MyISAM performance entirely. Yes, there are web host out there
that don't support InnoDB. No, drupal.org is never going to run on a shared
host at this point nor should we expect it to, but while optimizing for that
case we need to make sure we don't undermine performance for the shared hosts
that run the majority of domains out there. *Not* all high-end optimizations
have no impact or minor negative impact on low-end sites. We saw that with
the path alias switch in 4.7.
That is all I was saying.
Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42
larry at garfieldtech.com ICQ: 6817012
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea,
which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession
of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas
More information about the development