NoSQL and MySQL notes

NoSQL: If Only It Was That Easy at Marked As Pertinent

What am I going to build my next app on? Probably Postgres. Will I use NoSQL? Maybe. I might also use Hadoop and Hive. I might keep everything in flat files. Maybe I’ll start hacking on Maglev. I’ll use whatever is best for the job. If I need reporting, I won’t be using any NoSQL. If I need caching, I’ll probably use Tokyo Tyrant. If I need ACIDity, I won’t use NoSQL. If I need a ton of counters, I’ll use Redis. If I need transactions, I’ll use Postgres. If I have a ton of a single type of documents, I’ll probably use Mongo. If I need to write 1 billion objects a day, I’d probably use Voldemort. If I need full text search, I’d probably use Solr. If I need full text search of volatile data, I’d probably use Sphinx.

Which is faster: MySQL or MongoDB? Does it depend on the use case? – Quora

To me, the Mysql vs MongoDB benchmarks are revealing as they show that with beefy hardware, a NoSQL engine does not have to be faster than a well indexed Mysql Table, which might seem the case.


MySQL became the most popular relational database on the planet by turning its weaknesses into strengths and successfully leveraging its ubiquity.


It would be foolish to predict the same success that MySQL enjoyed for MongoDB, because the underlying market context has changed.

Know your framework !

I agree with this article

you need to know your framework before saying that is fast or not. If you need to save some ms (if that helps, does it ?), profile and optimize. With some simple optimization (the one in the article + apc cache of conf files if you have them) you can easily dispath a ZF route in < 30 ms. Now, do you really need it to save more ms ? profile the whole system, probably your bottleneck are other things, inside and outside your server

PHP Framework Benchmarks: Entertaining But Ultimately Useless | Pádraic Brady

To create a positive benchmark, you need to understand that all frameworks were born as festering piles of unoptimised stinking crap. They were all born bad and get worse with age. This sounds quite sad, but actually it’s an inevitable compromise between performance and features. It’s also a compromise between performance and ease-of-use. So you see, performance is unfairly faced by two opponents: features and ease-of-use. All performance is sacrificed in the name of serving the needs of rapid development, flexibility, prototyping, and making your source code look prettier than the other guy’s. As if.

idbdata problem with MySQL

How to shrink/purge ibdata1 file in MySQL – Stack Overflow

That ibdata1 isn’t shrinking is a particularly annoying feature of MySQL. The ibdata1 file can´t actually be shrunk unless you delete all databases, remove the files and reload a dump. But you can configure MySQL so that each table, including its indexes, is stored as a separate file. In that way ibdata1 will not grow as large. It was a while ago I did this. However, to setup your server to use separate files for each table you need to change my.cnf in order to enable this: [mysqld] innodb_file_per_table=1

Linux bash: pipe output to an email address as attachment

on ubuntu 11.10

sudo apt-get install mailutils
sudo apt-get install sharutils
Install mailutils as a local server, it will send the mail as <whoami>@<hostname>

To send the manual of mysqldump to my kindle (amazon will convert and deliver for me, of cours add the sender to the allowed addresses here )

man mysqldump | uuencode attach.txt | mail -s “