Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Why Uber switched from Postgres to MySQL

posted by n1 on Thursday July 28 2016, @06:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the they-forgot-about-mssql dept.

[redacted] Coward writes:

https://eng.uber.com/mysql-migration/

The early architecture of Uber consisted of a monolithic backend application written in Python that used Postgres for data persistence. Since that time, the architecture of Uber has changed significantly, to a model of microservices and new data platforms. Specifically, in many of the cases where we previously used Postgres, we now use Schemaless, a novel database sharding layer built on top of MySQL. In this article, we’ll explore some of the drawbacks we found with Postgres and explain the decision to build Schemaless and other backend services on top of MySQL.

[...] We encountered many Postgres limitations:

Inefficient architecture for writes
Inefficient data replication
Issues with table corruption
Poor replica MVCC support
Difficulty upgrading to newer releases

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Why Uber switched from Postgres to MySQL | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 34 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by mtrycz on Thursday July 28 2016, @08:47PM

    by mtrycz (60) on Thursday July 28 2016, @08:47PM (#381318)

    Found thins on the Hacker News discussion, thought it might be useful.

    Uber's 2013 MySQL to PostgreSQL migration

    https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/53683323/migrating-uber-from-mysql-to-postgresql [yumpu.com]

    --
    In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   4  

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by NCommander on Friday July 29 2016, @01:01AM

    by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <michael@casadevall.pro> on Friday July 29 2016, @01:01AM (#381385) Homepage Journal

    Just reading that shows the argument on migrating to MySQL for reasons of data corruption is complete bull, given they had plenty due to MySQLisms beforehand. I've wanted to gut the site and change out our database from MySQL cluster to PG for awhile but lack of time and energy has prevented it.

    --
    Still always moving

    • (Score: 2) by TheLink on Friday July 29 2016, @07:18PM

      by TheLink (332) on Friday July 29 2016, @07:18PM (#381677) Journal

      What I find interesting was they couldn't upgrade from old Postgresql to new Postgresql but they could migrate from old Postgresql to Schemaless+MySQL/MySQL.

      Is it because Schemaless/MySQL was a lot more hardware-efficient? e.g. migrating from 1000 servers to 100 new servers is a lot easier on the budget than migrating from 1000 servers to another 1000 servers (assuming newer versions of Postgresql still have the same performance problems for their use-case - which seems likely).

      See also: http://planet.mysql.com/entry/?id=5997307 [mysql.com]