Kate Turner wrote:
Timwi wrote in
gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical:
What is the problem
with storing article texts in the DB? It would seem that LiveJournal is
storing *way* more text in their DB than Wikipedia, so what is different
about Wikipedia that makes it infeasible to follow their example?
one thing to consider is that LJ is able to cluster text storage over
several databases, separated by journal. we cannot split en: between more
than one database, at least until if/when MySQL Cluster becomes useful.
(well, some homegrown solution can be used, but then that's just external
text storage that happens to use MySQL).
Of course we can split en: (by namespace, by first letter, by whatever
you want).
in any case, just because LJ does it one way
doesn't mean that's the best
way to do it...
What was the purpose of this dismissive remark? It is clearly better
than Wikipedia's current state, judging from the server speed and the
frequency of database error messages.
Timwi