MySQL vs Riak: What are the differences?
Developers describe MySQL as "The world's most popular open source database". The MySQL software delivers a very fast, multi-threaded, multi-user, and robust SQL (Structured Query Language) database server. MySQL Server is intended for mission-critical, heavy-load production systems as well as for embedding into mass-deployed software. On the other hand, Riak is detailed as "A distributed, decentralized data storage system". Riak is a distributed database designed to deliver maximum data availability by distributing data across multiple servers. As long as your client can reach one Riak server, it should be able to write data. In most failure scenarios, the data you want to read should be available, although it may not be the most up-to-date version of that data.
MySQL and Riak can be primarily classified as "Databases" tools.
"Sql" is the top reason why over 778 developers like MySQL, while over 9 developers mention "High Performance " as the leading cause for choosing Riak.
MySQL and Riak are both open source tools. MySQL with 3.97K GitHub stars and 1.56K forks on GitHub appears to be more popular than Riak with 3.24K GitHub stars and 530 GitHub forks.
According to the StackShare community, MySQL has a broader approval, being mentioned in 2991 company stacks & 3049 developers stacks; compared to Riak, which is listed in 15 company stacks and 10 developer stacks.
What is MySQL?
What is Riak?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
What are the cons of using Riak?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
They're critical to the business data and operated by an ecosystem of tools. But once the tools have been used, it was important to verify that the data remains as expected at all times. Even with the best efforts to prevent errors, inconsistencies are bound to creep at any stage. In order to test the code in a comprehensive manner, Slack developed a structure known as a consistency check framework.
This is a responsive and personalized framework that can meaningfully analyze and report on your data with a number of proactive and reactive benefits. This framework is important because it can help with repair and recovery from an outage or bug, it can help ensure effective data migration through scripts that test the code post-migration, and find bugs throughout the database. This framework helped prevent duplication and identifies the canonical code in each case, running as reusable code.
The framework was created by creating generic versions of the scanning and reporting code and an interface for the checking code. The checks could be run from the command line and either a single team could be scanned or the whole system. The process was improved over time to further customize the checks and make them more specific. In order to make this framework accessible to everyone, a GUI was added and connected to the internal administrative system. The framework was also modified to include code that can fix certain problems, while others are left for manual intervention. For Slack, such a tool proved extremely beneficial in ensuring data integrity both internally and externally.
As is common in the Rails stack, since the very beginning, we've stayed with MySQL as a relational database, Memcached for key/value storage and Redis for queues and background jobs.
In 2014, we could no longer store all our data in a single MySQL instance - even by buying better hardware. We decided to use sharding and split all of Shopify into dozens of database partitions.
Sharding played nicely for us because Shopify merchants are isolated from each other and we were able to put a subset of merchants on a single shard. It would have been harder if our business assumed shared data between customers.
The sharding project bought us some time regarding database capacity, but as we soon found out, there was a huge single point of failure in our infrastructure. All those shards were still using a single Redis. At one point, the outage of that Redis took down all of Shopify, causing a major disruption we later called “Redismageddon”. This taught us an important lesson to avoid any resources that are shared across all of Shopify.
Over the years, we moved from shards to the concept of "pods". A pod is a fully isolated instance of Shopify with its own datastores like MySQL, Redis, memcached. A pod can be spawned in any region. This approach has helped us eliminate global outages. As of today, we have more than a hundred pods, and since moving to this architecture we haven't had any major outages that affected all of Shopify. An outage today only affects a single pod or region.
At Shopify, over the years, we moved from shards to the concept of "pods". A pod is a fully isolated instance of Shopify with its own datastores like MySQL, Redis, Memcached. A pod can be spawned in any region. This approach has helped us eliminate global outages. As of today, we have more than a hundred pods, and since moving to this architecture we haven't had any major outages that affected all of Shopify. An outage today only affects a single pod or region.
As we grew into hundreds of shards and pods, it became clear that we needed a solution to orchestrate those deployments. Today, we use Docker, Kubernetes, and Google Kubernetes Engine to make it easy to bootstrap resources for new Shopify Pods.
The majority of our Clojure microservices are simple web services that wrap a transactional database with CRUD operations and a little bit of business logic. We use both MySQL and PostgreSQL for transactional data persistence, having transitioned from the former to the latter for newer services to take advantage of the new features coming out of the Postgres community.
Most of our Clojure best practices can be summed up by the phrase "keep it simple." We avoid more complex web frameworks in favor of using the Ring library to build web service routes, and we prefer sending SQL directly to the JDBC library rather than using a complicated ORM or SQL DSL.
We went with MongoDB , almost by mistake. I had never used it before, but I knew I wanted the *EAN part of the MEAN stack, so why not go all in. I come from a background of SQL (first MySQL , then PostgreSQL ), so I definitely abused Mongo at first... by trying to turn it into something more relational than it should be. But hey, data is supposed to be relational, so there wasn't really any way to get around that.
There's a lot I love about MongoDB, and a lot I hate. I still don't know if we made the right decision. We've been able to build much quicker, but we also have had some growing pains. We host our databases on MongoDB Atlas , and I can't say enough good things about it. We had tried MongoLab and Compose before it, and with MongoDB Atlas I finally feel like things are in a good place. I don't know if I'd use it for a one-off small project, but for a large product Atlas has given us a ton more control, stability and trust.
Back at the start of 2017, we decided to create a web-based tool for the SEO OnPage analysis of our clients' websites. We had over 2.000 websites to analyze, so we had to perform thousands of requests to get every single page from those websites, process the information and save the big amounts of data somewhere.
Very soon we realized that the initial chosen script language and database, PHP, Laravel and MySQL, was not going to be able to cope efficiently with such a task.
By that time, we were doing some experiments for other projects with a language we had recently get to know, Go , so we decided to get a try and code the crawler using it. It was fantastic, we could process much more data with way less CPU power and in less time. By using the concurrency abilites that the language has to offers, we could also do more Http requests in less time.
Unfortunately, I have no comparison numbers to show about the performance differences between Go and PHP since the difference was so clear from the beginning and that we didn't feel the need to do further comparison tests nor document it. We just switched fully to Go.
There was still a problem: despite the big amount of Data we were generating, MySQL was performing very well, but as we were adding more and more features to the software and with those features more and more different type of data to save, it was a nightmare for the database architects to structure everything correctly on the database, so it was clear what we had to do next: switch to a NoSQL database. So we switched to MongoDB, and it was also fantastic: we were expending almost zero time in thinking how to structure the Database and the performance also seemed to be better, but again, I have no comparison numbers to show due to the lack of time.
As of now, we don't only use the tool intern but we also opened it for everyone to use for free: https://tool-seo.com
We've been using PostgreSQL since the very early days of Zulip, but we actually didn't use it from the beginning. Zulip started out as a MySQL project back in 2012, because we'd heard it was a good choice for a startup with a wide community. However, we found that even though we were using the Django ORM for most of our database access, we spent a lot of time fighting with MySQL. Issues ranged from bad collation defaults, to bad query plans which required a lot of manual query tweaks.
We ended up getting so frustrated that we tried out PostgresQL, and the results were fantastic. We didn't have to do any real customization (just some tuning settings for how big a server we had), and all of our most important queries were faster out of the box. As a result, we were able to delete a bunch of custom queries escaping the ORM that we'd written to make the MySQL query planner happy (because postgres just did the right thing automatically).
And then after that, we've just gotten a ton of value out of postgres. We use its excellent built-in full-text search, which has helped us avoid needing to bring in a tool like Elasticsearch, and we've really enjoyed features like its partial indexes, which saved us a lot of work adding unnecessary extra tables to get good performance for things like our "unread messages" and "starred messages" indexes.
I can't recommend it highly enough.
Our most popular (& controversial!) article to date on the Uber Engineering blog in 3+ yrs. Why we moved from PostgreSQL to MySQL. In essence, it was due to a variety of limitations of Postgres at the time. Fun fact -- earlier in Uber's history we'd actually moved from MySQL to Postgres before switching back for good, & though we published the article in Summer 2016 we haven't looked back since:
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 (https://eng.uber.com/schemaless-part-one/). 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:
I'm the CTO of a marketing automation SaaS. Because of the continuously increasing load we moved to the AWSCloud. We are using more and more features of AWS: Amazon CloudWatch, Amazon SNS, Amazon CloudFront, Amazon Route 53 and so on.
Our main Database is MySQL but for the hundreds of GB document data we use MongoDB more and more. We started to use Redis for cache and other time sensitive operations.
On the front-end we use jQuery UI + Smarty but now we refactor our app to use Vue.js with Vuetify. Because our app is relatively complex we need to use vuex as well.
On the development side we use GitHub as our main repo, Docker for local and server environment and Jenkins and AWS CodePipeline for Continuous Integration.