[wp-hackers] State of WP

[Brian Layman]

>Thanks for the detailed response (and thanks to others who responded).

Glad I could contribute Kevin.

Brian Layman wrote:
>> MySQL, to be brutally honest, is not a very mature database system. 
BTW, I've been somewhat regretting that statement.  MySQL has taken
tremendous strides past where we are living in the WordPress world. The
WordPress core has deliberately chosen not to take advantage of certain
MySQL features in order to allow a wider, more compatible install base.
That doesn't mean that  the current MySQL implementation isn't mature.

Heck, 5.1 even has partitioning so that you can balance your server loads.
And if you customized your system, you will not be forced to live in the
same world as the open source core project must live in.  

> We'd probably have at least 10,000 right off the bat (with blog data 
> ported from another system). It would likely grow to 100,000 within 6-12 
> months. Could eventually get to half-a-million or more. 

Well, then you're right to start out on that scale from the beginning.  Some
Internet startups spend so much time planning to be large, that they fail
before they start.  I just wanted to know which group you were in. ;)

> We already use MySQL, which is why we'd want to use it if we can.
> DrMike mentioned a limitation of 32k files, but isn't it actually 32k 
> sub-directories within a directory? So if it's one big database, isn't 
> it just a whole lot of files within one directory, not 32k+ 
> sub-directories within a directory? 

You are correct.  Robert has confirmed this, and believes that MySQL can
handle the load you are facing.

> My fear is that we would reach 32k quickly. If that is indeed the danger 
> number, I'd rather be prepared for it. Maybe we have outgrown MySQL? 
> Will investigate further.
See Above.

>It sounds like there would be benefits to starting with WP as a foundation.
I think so. And your resource base, as far as employees, is growing as more
and more folks choose WP as a solution.  In my mind, WordPress has passed
the 'fad' stage and has reached the point where the business world
recognizes it as a real product that has value to them.  I'm not certain
that's the case for the alternatives that are out there.  Drupal gets a lot
of discussion, but I get flashes of RuPaul everytime I see the name and I
have a hard time considering it seriously after that. ;)

> I have also been wondering why the approach for multi-sites would not be
to have one 
> database and a fixed number of tables, and have blog-specific data
referenced by blog_id 
> (like "post_blog_id" in a "posts" table). Therefore "select post_id,
post_title ... from 
> posts where post_blog_id = '$blogid' and ..." 
> Simply too many records and slow queries? 

That's what I expected to see when I first looked at WPMU.  I think the
choice was made because of the target userbase.  WPmu was made (I presume)
with blogging community sites in mind.  Therefore data isolation is a
concern.  If a query can be malformed that would allow access to all records
in the table, that's a security risk.  That said, this is only a guess

> Is the WPMU forum the best place to follow up with these questions?
I dunno, I'm enjoying the conversation here.  As long as Lloyd doesn't kick
us out... ;)