[wp-hackers] Porting Wordpress to PostgreSQL

[Andrew Krespanis]

Sorry, I hit send too early:
Also, adoDB 4.8 implements the Active Record pattern in a very similar
manner to the intentions of the Zend Framework (although Zend haven't
released that code yet afaik); although it actually is a more feature
rich implementation. That alone would be a godsend for many plugin developers...

class Product extends ADODB_Active_Record {}
$p = new Product();
$p.name = 'Wicked Worpdress T-Shirt';
$p.price = '$15.00';
$p.save();

^ nothing to port there :D

On 3/22/06, Andrew Krespanis <leftjustified at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/06, John Joseph Bachir <jjb at ibiblio.org> wrote:
>
> > What is y'all's motivation for wanting to use postgres? The usual
> > motivation for using one DBMS over another is features, which is obviously
> > not the motivation in this case since you are porting an exisitng
> > application.
> My reason for wanting to support Oracle is because there are a LOT of
> universities already heavily invested in Oracle due to it being
> required for Blackboard, the leading (*cough - i wish it wasn't true*)
> Learning Management System. Seeing as Blackboard just bought their
> only competition, this is going to increase over time.
> As for postgres, I think those guys are in a similar boat -- if you
> can't get MySQL installed for whatever reason, you work with what you
> have.
>
> > I can't imagine that  the effort to port to another SQL dialect would be cheaper
> > than throwing hardware at the deployment.
>
> What kind of cheapo servers is your company using and where can I get some?! :D
> I can't speak for anyone else, but my day job doesn't have MySQL
> because our DBA team are all Oracle and that's just the way it is.
> Currently the estimate for a 99.xx% uptime MySQL box in our internal
> data centre with support and nightly backup is AU$10,000 per year...
> yeah, PER YEAR! :-O
> There's no way it would cost $10,000 of my time to port WP. Even if it
> did, it's a one time investment with periodic upgrades, not the same
> fee every year.
>
> > Also you mention that adoDB is fast... it might be fast compared to other
> > abstraction layers, but afaik all abstraction layers are slower than
> > direct SQL. Or does it have some super fancy caching these days? Much
> > fancier than the DBMS' caching systems?
>
> Absolutely -- lowest common denominator SQL (eg: pure ANSI 92) is aka
> 'slowest common denominator' -- you can't take advantage of anything
> offered outside that standard. *However*, the adoDB object has a
> lovely method called Prepare($sql); which does nothing on MySQL 4.x.
> If you're using just about anything else though (M$SQL, Oracle,
> Postgre, probably MySQL5) this will automagically take advantage of
> the query caching offered by your target DB.
>
> The best bit of the above query caching features (and other related
> functions) is that you can call them for any target DB and adoDB will
> know what to use and where. I get very good results using this with
> Oracle and would almost go so far as to say any DB offering query
> caching would slay MySQL for pure content output under heavy load.
> (working under the pretence that PHP level cahcing isn't also
> happening, which it should be). However, that's too hard to prove and
> far too debatable, so I'm going to walk away from that statement ;)
>
> To reiterate  -- abstraction is often referred to as a pretty term for
> _slow_. Working off the php version of adoDB is fine, but the C
> extension is truly awesome.
> Also, adoDB 4.8 implements the Active Record pattern in a very similar
> manner to the intentions of the Zend Framework (although Zend haven't
> released that code yet afaik); although it actually is a more feature
> rich implementation.
>
> -Andrew
>


--
http://leftjustified.net/
~ Show me one user that actually needs a 'reset' button on a web form
and I'll show you 50 that clicked it by mistake and left your site in
disgust. :)