Yahoo and Google are mostly read only databases...they update using a backend process, specifically to avoid many MySQL short comings. I don't know the full details; though I do believe it's at off peak hours. Specifically, Google is heavily distributed so a large number of updates can be done on a single box, at one time, while impacting a small number of potential queries.
Given the stats you quote for Wikipedia...it's pretty obvious it's *mostly* a read only database; which is MySQL's sole sweet spot. Heck, look at the stats your self... 16000 r/s with 49 iud/s. The write activity, over the average second makes up only 3% of the total activity. Talk to me again when you have something other than what is clearly a read-only (97%) database. Try MySQL in an environment where the read:write ratio is something like 2:1 or even 4:1 on a fairly complex schema (queries involve many, common tables) and you'll find, as have been well documented on many benchmarks, MySQL can't even finish. And performance wise, falls to the back of the pack of every other RDMBs in the test. And, let's not forget the many bad habbits it forces and crappy SQL implementation it teaches.
Heck, let's not forget/. its self. It takes a huge pounding and survives being/.'d. But then again, many serious comprimises were made to make it survive and it still periodically falls down. Heck, sometimes even when it doesn't fall down, it grinds to a halt.
Long story short, I'm happy Wikipedia is doing well with MySQL but chances are VERY, VERY high that you would be doing *far* better with just about any other RDBMs; be it PostgreSQL, Firebird, or even the likes of PostgreSQL, Oracle, or MSSQL Server.
PostgreSQL has had master/slave replication for several years, freely available. More recently, PostgeSQL' replication has gotten yet more sophisticated, feature rich, and capable. Furthermore, commerical clustering and replication solutions have existed for PostgreSQL for ages.
AFAIK, PostgreSQL has no such limit. In fact, it's far more likely that you have an OS limit that was causing hte problem. Having said that, depending on the nature of your applications, DB connection pooling should be seriously considered. And FYI, PostgreSQL has replication both freely available and commerically supported now. It has for a while now.
What did the very helpful guys in the PostgreSQL mailing lists have to say about your scaling issue?
Both postgresql and mysql lack query parallelism, fine memory tuning, any kind of partitioning, etc. Without these features postgresql is *at best* only faster than oracle on index-oriented extremely transactional applications. And I'd say it was pretty safe bet that Oracle would stomp postgresql in that space as well on reasonable hardware (ie, not desktops, etc).
Actually, unofficially of course (thanks to Oracle's license), PostgreSQL is well known for beating Oracle in many small to medium size databases. Feel free to ask around. It's not hard to find people that performed their own shootouts of PostgreSQL vs Oracle and picked PostgreSQL because the performance was equal or better at a fraction of the cost. Having said all that, Oracle does tend to SCALE far better for all the options and features you mention. Simple fact is, parallel queries are not going to save you anything on simplistic queries...etc..etc... Simple fact is, all of the high-end enterprise features that Oracle offers comes with a price. The benefit of paying that price is super scalability....And no, you would not be the first Oracle DBA (assuming) to be shocked that PostgreSQL can often keep pace if out outpace Oracle for many smaller (small - large; with very large usually going to Oracle) deployments.
If you are curious, check out the PostgreSQL archives and white papers. You'll find many people that contribute to PostgreSQL by actually picking another DB...and the developers are fine with that. What does that mean? It means there is no shortage of people comparing database x to PostgreSQL and asking the developers how to get better performance and/or sharing that PostgreSQL was picked for their project because it out performed x. How does that help? Well, if people are not picking PostgreSQL, then they want to know how and why. After all, it may help identify areas which need further attention or use cases they had not previously considered. Of course, the flip side is, you will find many people thrilled about PostgreSQL's performance compared to other database...and yes...other sometimes equals Oracle.
Everyone knows that obesity is infectious. It's actually an STD! Men are carriers and women become infected. While there are various treatments which are legal, once infected, it usually takes some 10-12 months for women to fully recover from the effects of the disease. Unfortunitally, most women which are afflicted with this wind up some type of horrible growth that cohabitates and grows at cancerous rates, for some 18-25 years.
It seems the poor and uneducated are most often afflicted. Regardless of your social standing, please do not assume that you are safe! Most doctors agree that the use of a condom may prevent your girlfriend or wife from contracting this horrible, disfiguring, disease.
when people design high performance web sites, they tend to go for simple queries and straightforward loads.
Who said anything about web sites? Besides, complex is always relative. Frankly, fairly simplistic queries for PostgreSQL can often be considered complex for MySQL, given its optimizer. What does, "straightforward loads", imply? Read only? MySQL's bane is concurrent reader/writers to the same tables.
Since you brought up web sites, believe it or not, most web sites require something other than single user, read-only access to their database, even from a web site. Forums, blogs, and even fairly complex, end-user applications are all common place these days. It's the application that dictates the complexity of any involved queries. Like it or not, MySQL is a poor bottom rung for all but the smallest and most simplistic of database driven web sites.
I'm curious. If you already have PostgreSQL in your hat, why do you bother with MySQL? App Requirements? Ease of use? Most comfortable? Tools? Seriously, what makes you pick one in which situation?
I'm glad you brought up performance versus scalability. PostgreSQL is often considered slow by MySQL fans who fail to understand the concept of scalability. Simply stated, MySQL is typically faster than PostgreSQL with low scalability requirements yet PostgreSQL tends to scale much, much better than does MySQL for both complex queries and highly concurrent, mixed operation loads. Obviously, this is a rule of thumb and not a hard/fast rule. I'm sure there are corner cases (which is often put forward in MySQL benchmarks, which are not reflective of real world applications) in each camp which ignore the rule.
For people that do not understand scalability versus performance, let's put it like this: MySQL is fast for one user and PostgreSQL, while fast for one user, tends to be slightly slower than MySQL. On the other hand, add a hundred concurrent, mixed operation (aka, not read only) users and MySQL tends to go belly up. At the same time, given the same example, PostgreSQL is happily chugging along; albiet at increased latencies. Of course, this statement is broad and makes many assumptions, but it will hopefully help others understand the concept.
So, given your rankings above, PostgreSQL, tends to find a middle ground between Oracle's performance/scalability ranking. In other words, PostgreSQL tends to scale less than Oracle yet tends to perform better. MySQL, on the other hand, performs fairly fast for read-only databases but scales very poorly.
That's dangerous talk. How do you feel about the Supreme Court's ruling on eminent domain? What if the local government wanted to condemn your home so that Wal-Mart could build another Super Center? After all, you should have your deed stripped because it's quite clear that you're nothing but a land squatter. You should live in a 1400 sq ft apartment that makes efficient use of land and resources like all the other Right Thinking Americans.
Actually, I believe a state court (Pennsylvania???) just recently said this is okay; stating something along the lines that corporate development is in the interest of the state. Basically, according to the implications of the court case, The State owns all the lands and our deeds are worthless; welcome to the former USSR...I mean the US. Seems none of us are actualy lander owners. Rather, we mearly pay for the land and work the land while The State decides how to better leverage their land.
Re:Glad this wasn't settled out of court
on
RIM - The Whole Story
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You mean like MS did MANY times...each time getting caught? And they only received a slap on the wrist...seems to me, the courts have established that being dishonest in the court room is the preferred means of representing you're self.
If these guys are to be slapped with billions, then MS should be slapped for trillions!
Except, what you're calling complex is simply different wine. Your statement can be applied to all categories of food but that hardly makes it complex. It simply means various ingredents are activating different areas on your tougue, soft palate, and epiglottis.
Complex does not necessarily mean good or bad
"Complex" has nothing to do with price either. And your "complex" is another man's common wine. This is because people's tastebuds vary dramatically and liquids are better at rapidly flushing over them than are foods. What you are calling complex for a wine is what the rest of the world, and even science, simply calls taste sensations.
After all that, "complex" in of its self is really not the meat of the discussion. The meat is, the wines which experts put forward as "too complex" for a lessor pallet or "inexperienced" is complete bullshit. That's the point which you completely missed. No one is saying that different wines don't taste differently. No one is saying that different wines don't have interesting character...that was your spin. The long of the short is, price is meaningless. The taste experts are worthless. If someone says something along the lines that your pallet isn't developed enough, they are full of shit. And lastly, smelling the cork is for the ignorant masses because it tells you nothing. Tasting it is all that counts. Want to be prentious? Fine, smell the cork...waft it from your decanter...but ultimately, it really only matters if you enjoy the taste. The rest is just a dog and pony show for the ignorant...
Ultimately, there are exactly three things that matter when you drink wine. One, does it taste good to *you*? Two, does it provide the character you're looking for to compliment your meal? Three, price is meaningless.
Just FYI...more and more, new type (well, actually both synthetic cork and treated cork) of cork is being used which prevents the musty and moldy oders by preventing the mold in the first place. This has been going on for years and is becoming more and more common. Why? Because even the wineries agree the cork says nothing. In fact, many have tried moving to a completely alternate and fully synthetic form of cork yet many traditionalist drinkers baulked at the notion, forcing them to move back to a more expensive and less reliable, traditional cork....which is still often treated.
So who are you going to believe? Scientist? The winery? Or some guy that was taught, based on old wives tale, who taught another guy, so on and so on, who taught you? Personally, I'll take science first and the winery with a grain of salt second. On the bottom of my shoe will be the self declared wine experts. But hey, if you want to listen to people that have no idea what they are talking about, despite them being the collective popular, by all means, go right ahead.
Which tells us nothing other than you've been brainwashed. Ignore the stupid cork! Taste the wine. Did you like it? No? Send it back! Enjoyed it? Keep drinking. Is that really that hard?
This only shows you have no capacity for critical thinking...which is not surprising if you're trying to tote the wine tasting party line. I said nothing that precludes people can agree and broad taste characteristics. Having said that, even the experts can not agree on what it is that they are tasting in these "too complex for the simpleton pallet" wines. Long of the short...the reason they can't agree is because they don't exist.
Find a wine YOU like and enjoy it. Ignore what everyone else has to say about odd taste, flavors, complex pallets, etc...and you'll be both smarter and happier.
Like everything you said, you're 100% incorrect. This is not "my opinion". This is fact. There is no lack of documneted information on the information I've provided. Surprisingly, much of this is coming from the wine industry its self...well, those that are trying to show the world how much snake oil there is in wine tasting. Saying I'm wrong is simply ignoring the only scientifically supported facts that exist within the world of wine tasting. Which ultimately....proves the masses have been brainwashed and will blindly march ahead rather than admit they look silly doing their blind, marching, dance.
I've had a fair amount of wine, and my fiancee is a sommelier. She has an excellent nose and sense of taste, and according to your theory, she should only be drinking super exotic expensive stuff.
That simply implies you're not driven to be elitist and/or your ego is in check. Meaning...you drink for the simple pleasure of a simple wine rather than trying to climb a social ladder. Nothing in my statement excludes the possibility that one may simply enjoy a glass of wine. The difference being, a good glass of wine is a personal experience. Your good is not my good is not Mr. Smith's good...yet "wine experts" make the effort to imply those that don't enjoy THEIR wine are simply not sophisticated enough in their brain or pallent. Hmmm....LOL...seems I just read someone ignorantly pushing that crap...LOL! Seriously...I'm laughing here! Thank you.:)
There are such a things as complex and sophisticated wines, but it sounds like either a) you haven't had any, or b) don't have the palate to make the distinction.
Thanks....I needed a good laugh to start my day. LOL! Change in temp or airiation does not a complex wine make. LOL! LOL! You want to try my complex water while you're at it! LOL!
Brainwashed beyond redemption!
Seriously....try bothering to find the real experters which study taste and yes...even wine...this is not my theory...and thus far, as far as the theory of wine and taste goes, it's the only truism which is supported by double blind taste tests. If you want to imagine anything else, please go ahead...I'm sure not stopping you. After all, laughter is a gift to the world. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Let me get this straight....you do a snobbish ritual that makes you look silly and then you do the only thing that matters....smell and taste the wine it self! Since no one with half a brain is going to send back a bottle based soley on the oder of a cork...those that smell the cork are truly ignorant or a dumb ass. This is a factually based statement as it's been proven time and time again based on taste tests. Only the ignorant or egotistical elitist believes the cork has any value as it relates to taste or quality of wine.
At the end of the day, the only thing to remember about wine is that if YOU like it, then it's good. Price, vintage, varietal, etc., has absolutely nothing to do with it. People just tend to feel pressured into buying expensive wines and doing stupid human tricks at the table for fear of looking stupid.
Which means...wine experts are for no body...yet it doesn't stop idiots from listening to these dummies. I completely agree with this assertion!
They cost more to make and are much more rare than a can of Bud. They will ALWAYS have higher social status because of this.
Actually, most "fine wines" cost more because of the name attached and has little to do with the cost of production. Obviously, cost of production is a factor, but it is not the most significant factor; well, very rarely. Simple fact is, if a "fine wine" maker places ihs/her name on a bottle, they can sell it for more. Why? It's called branding and is commonly done for the ignorant masses in just about every market segment. With wine, it's mostly because so many people like to pretend they are more sophisticated than everyone else, will buy it simply because 1) it's more expensive, and 2) it's bottled by a "fine wine" name.
Wine tasting IS SNAKE OIL; 100% so. Here's what happens. You get used to tasting specific characteristics of certain types of wine and eventually your brain no longer registers the tastes like you once did. The same is 100% true for vision, smell, and hearing. You then move on to a new wine which offers new flavors (stimulus) that your tongue could not previously discern. It's now a "fine wine" because it's drank by someone that drinks a lot of wine and has effectively neutered part of their taste buds. Repeat and rinse.
In other words, they are forced to move from good tasting wines to more and more obscure tastes because they drink too much wine. Then, because they drink too much wine, they present themselves as a tasting expert and can only explain the fact that they like their expensive wines and you don't because they have established a taste for fine wines, which others can not hope to appreciate. In reality, either they've brainwashed themselves into liking something that tastes like crap (which is surprisingly easy to do), to feel superior, or they've temporarily killed off part of their sensory development, forcing them to move to crappier and crappier tasting wines in an effort to continue drinking too much wine, while hoping to find some taste that can still reach their brain through their abused buds.
This is why there is no such thing as "good wine", nor, "complex wine", nor, "sophisticated wine". If there were, a vast majority would be able to agree what exactly what that is via double blind tests; as can be done with good food. And by the way, good food is almost always NEVER complex. Why? Because it hides flavors and almost universally makes people agree that it tastes bad, or certainly not as good.
Hmmm....maybe I should start a new type of "ultra fine foods", which tastes like crap and when people say they don't like it, I can charge them $200 a plate and simply inform them their pallet isn't sophisticated enough to appreciate the fine and complex flavors of their meal....but they could if they decided they wanted to pretend they knew more then everyone else. Some could then go on to become "ultra fine food" snobs...which the rest of us can laugh at...just like any of us do with "wine snobs"....please don't tell me you smell the cork...
Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo and Google are mostly read only databases...they update using a backend process, specifically to avoid many MySQL short comings. I don't know the full details; though I do believe it's at off peak hours. Specifically, Google is heavily distributed so a large number of updates can be done on a single box, at one time, while impacting a small number of potential queries.
/. its self. It takes a huge pounding and survives being /.'d. But then again, many serious comprimises were made to make it survive and it still periodically falls down. Heck, sometimes even when it doesn't fall down, it grinds to a halt.
Given the stats you quote for Wikipedia...it's pretty obvious it's *mostly* a read only database; which is MySQL's sole sweet spot. Heck, look at the stats your self... 16000 r/s with 49 iud/s. The write activity, over the average second makes up only 3% of the total activity. Talk to me again when you have something other than what is clearly a read-only (97%) database. Try MySQL in an environment where the read:write ratio is something like 2:1 or even 4:1 on a fairly complex schema (queries involve many, common tables) and you'll find, as have been well documented on many benchmarks, MySQL can't even finish. And performance wise, falls to the back of the pack of every other RDMBs in the test. And, let's not forget the many bad habbits it forces and crappy SQL implementation it teaches.
Heck, let's not forget
Long story short, I'm happy Wikipedia is doing well with MySQL but chances are VERY, VERY high that you would be doing *far* better with just about any other RDBMs; be it PostgreSQL, Firebird, or even the likes of PostgreSQL, Oracle, or MSSQL Server.
It leaves me wondering how long it will be until we prove that no one is responsible for anything.
;) :P
You're really behind the times! That happened last year! But I guess no one will accept responsibility for not telling you.
PostgreSQL has had master/slave replication for several years, freely available. More recently, PostgeSQL' replication has gotten yet more sophisticated, feature rich, and capable. Furthermore, commerical clustering and replication solutions have existed for PostgreSQL for ages.
So does PostgreSQL...it's called MVCC. Here's a completely random link I found which appears to explain it. http://linuxgazette.net/issue68/mitchell.html
;)
So really you're saying, "One of the most fundimental advantages of Oracle and PostgreSQL over the others..."
AFAIK, PostgreSQL has no such limit. In fact, it's far more likely that you have an OS limit that was causing hte problem. Having said that, depending on the nature of your applications, DB connection pooling should be seriously considered. And FYI, PostgreSQL has replication both freely available and commerically supported now. It has for a while now.
What did the very helpful guys in the PostgreSQL mailing lists have to say about your scaling issue?
Both postgresql and mysql lack query parallelism, fine memory tuning, any kind of partitioning, etc. Without these features postgresql is *at best* only faster than oracle on index-oriented extremely transactional applications. And I'd say it was pretty safe bet that Oracle would stomp postgresql in that space as well on reasonable hardware (ie, not desktops, etc).
...And no, you would not be the first Oracle DBA (assuming) to be shocked that PostgreSQL can often keep pace if out outpace Oracle for many smaller (small - large; with very large usually going to Oracle) deployments.
Actually, unofficially of course (thanks to Oracle's license), PostgreSQL is well known for beating Oracle in many small to medium size databases. Feel free to ask around. It's not hard to find people that performed their own shootouts of PostgreSQL vs Oracle and picked PostgreSQL because the performance was equal or better at a fraction of the cost. Having said all that, Oracle does tend to SCALE far better for all the options and features you mention. Simple fact is, parallel queries are not going to save you anything on simplistic queries...etc..etc... Simple fact is, all of the high-end enterprise features that Oracle offers comes with a price. The benefit of paying that price is super scalability.
If you are curious, check out the PostgreSQL archives and white papers. You'll find many people that contribute to PostgreSQL by actually picking another DB...and the developers are fine with that. What does that mean? It means there is no shortage of people comparing database x to PostgreSQL and asking the developers how to get better performance and/or sharing that PostgreSQL was picked for their project because it out performed x. How does that help? Well, if people are not picking PostgreSQL, then they want to know how and why. After all, it may help identify areas which need further attention or use cases they had not previously considered. Of course, the flip side is, you will find many people thrilled about PostgreSQL's performance compared to other database...and yes...other sometimes equals Oracle.
Everyone knows that obesity is infectious. It's actually an STD! Men are carriers and women become infected. While there are various treatments which are legal, once infected, it usually takes some 10-12 months for women to fully recover from the effects of the disease. Unfortunitally, most women which are afflicted with this wind up some type of horrible growth that cohabitates and grows at cancerous rates, for some 18-25 years.
It seems the poor and uneducated are most often afflicted. Regardless of your social standing, please do not assume that you are safe! Most doctors agree that the use of a condom may prevent your girlfriend or wife from contracting this horrible, disfiguring, disease.
when people design high performance web sites, they tend to go for simple queries and straightforward loads.
Who said anything about web sites? Besides, complex is always relative. Frankly, fairly simplistic queries for PostgreSQL can often be considered complex for MySQL, given its optimizer. What does, "straightforward loads", imply? Read only? MySQL's bane is concurrent reader/writers to the same tables.
Since you brought up web sites, believe it or not, most web sites require something other than single user, read-only access to their database, even from a web site. Forums, blogs, and even fairly complex, end-user applications are all common place these days. It's the application that dictates the complexity of any involved queries. Like it or not, MySQL is a poor bottom rung for all but the smallest and most simplistic of database driven web sites.
I'm curious. If you already have PostgreSQL in your hat, why do you bother with MySQL? App Requirements? Ease of use? Most comfortable? Tools? Seriously, what makes you pick one in which situation?
I'm glad you brought up performance versus scalability. PostgreSQL is often considered slow by MySQL fans who fail to understand the concept of scalability. Simply stated, MySQL is typically faster than PostgreSQL with low scalability requirements yet PostgreSQL tends to scale much, much better than does MySQL for both complex queries and highly concurrent, mixed operation loads. Obviously, this is a rule of thumb and not a hard/fast rule. I'm sure there are corner cases (which is often put forward in MySQL benchmarks, which are not reflective of real world applications) in each camp which ignore the rule.
For people that do not understand scalability versus performance, let's put it like this:
MySQL is fast for one user and PostgreSQL, while fast for one user, tends to be slightly slower than MySQL. On the other hand, add a hundred concurrent, mixed operation (aka, not read only) users and MySQL tends to go belly up. At the same time, given the same example, PostgreSQL is happily chugging along; albiet at increased latencies. Of course, this statement is broad and makes many assumptions, but it will hopefully help others understand the concept.
So, given your rankings above, PostgreSQL, tends to find a middle ground between Oracle's performance/scalability ranking. In other words, PostgreSQL tends to scale less than Oracle yet tends to perform better. MySQL, on the other hand, performs fairly fast for read-only databases but scales very poorly.
That's dangerous talk. How do you feel about the Supreme Court's ruling on eminent domain? What if the local government wanted to condemn your home so that Wal-Mart could build another Super Center? After all, you should have your deed stripped because it's quite clear that you're nothing but a land squatter. You should live in a 1400 sq ft apartment that makes efficient use of land and resources like all the other Right Thinking Americans.
Actually, I believe a state court (Pennsylvania???) just recently said this is okay; stating something along the lines that corporate development is in the interest of the state. Basically, according to the implications of the court case, The State owns all the lands and our deeds are worthless; welcome to the former USSR...I mean the US. Seems none of us are actualy lander owners. Rather, we mearly pay for the land and work the land while The State decides how to better leverage their land.
You mean like MS did MANY times...each time getting caught? And they only received a slap on the wrist...seems to me, the courts have established that being dishonest in the court room is the preferred means of representing you're self.
If these guys are to be slapped with billions, then MS should be slapped for trillions!
Their decision has got nothing to do with what the "cork tells you".
You have it backwards. The migration to newer/better corks means the cork tells you nothing.
Except, what you're calling complex is simply different wine. Your statement can be applied to all categories of food but that hardly makes it complex. It simply means various ingredents are activating different areas on your tougue, soft palate, and epiglottis.
Complex does not necessarily mean good or bad
"Complex" has nothing to do with price either. And your "complex" is another man's common wine. This is because people's tastebuds vary dramatically and liquids are better at rapidly flushing over them than are foods. What you are calling complex for a wine is what the rest of the world, and even science, simply calls taste sensations.
After all that, "complex" in of its self is really not the meat of the discussion. The meat is, the wines which experts put forward as "too complex" for a lessor pallet or "inexperienced" is complete bullshit. That's the point which you completely missed. No one is saying that different wines don't taste differently. No one is saying that different wines don't have interesting character...that was your spin. The long of the short is, price is meaningless. The taste experts are worthless. If someone says something along the lines that your pallet isn't developed enough, they are full of shit. And lastly, smelling the cork is for the ignorant masses because it tells you nothing. Tasting it is all that counts. Want to be prentious? Fine, smell the cork...waft it from your decanter...but ultimately, it really only matters if you enjoy the taste. The rest is just a dog and pony show for the ignorant...
Ultimately, there are exactly three things that matter when you drink wine. One, does it taste good to *you*? Two, does it provide the character you're looking for to compliment your meal? Three, price is meaningless.
Just FYI...more and more, new type (well, actually both synthetic cork and treated cork) of cork is being used which prevents the musty and moldy oders by preventing the mold in the first place. This has been going on for years and is becoming more and more common. Why? Because even the wineries agree the cork says nothing. In fact, many have tried moving to a completely alternate and fully synthetic form of cork yet many traditionalist drinkers baulked at the notion, forcing them to move back to a more expensive and less reliable, traditional cork....which is still often treated.
So who are you going to believe? Scientist? The winery? Or some guy that was taught, based on old wives tale, who taught another guy, so on and so on, who taught you? Personally, I'll take science first and the winery with a grain of salt second. On the bottom of my shoe will be the self declared wine experts. But hey, if you want to listen to people that have no idea what they are talking about, despite them being the collective popular, by all means, go right ahead.
Which is why the bottle should be uncorked at the table or within sight. Smelling the cork provides nothing.
Besides, if you have that much distrust...who's to say the label hasn't been switched.
Which can be done without getting a cork anywhere near ones face. :)
Considering the "experts" can't do it...you'd be taking the bill. Period.
Which tells us nothing other than you've been brainwashed. Ignore the stupid cork! Taste the wine. Did you like it? No? Send it back! Enjoyed it? Keep drinking. Is that really that hard?
This only shows you have no capacity for critical thinking...which is not surprising if you're trying to tote the wine tasting party line. I said nothing that precludes people can agree and broad taste characteristics. Having said that, even the experts can not agree on what it is that they are tasting in these "too complex for the simpleton pallet" wines. Long of the short...the reason they can't agree is because they don't exist.
Find a wine YOU like and enjoy it. Ignore what everyone else has to say about odd taste, flavors, complex pallets, etc...and you'll be both smarter and happier.
Your opinions seem to reflect
Like everything you said, you're 100% incorrect. This is not "my opinion". This is fact. There is no lack of documneted information on the information I've provided. Surprisingly, much of this is coming from the wine industry its self...well, those that are trying to show the world how much snake oil there is in wine tasting. Saying I'm wrong is simply ignoring the only scientifically supported facts that exist within the world of wine tasting. Which ultimately....proves the masses have been brainwashed and will blindly march ahead rather than admit they look silly doing their blind, marching, dance.
I've had a fair amount of wine, and my fiancee is a sommelier. She has an excellent nose and sense of taste, and according to your theory, she should only be drinking super exotic expensive stuff.
:)
That simply implies you're not driven to be elitist and/or your ego is in check. Meaning...you drink for the simple pleasure of a simple wine rather than trying to climb a social ladder. Nothing in my statement excludes the possibility that one may simply enjoy a glass of wine. The difference being, a good glass of wine is a personal experience. Your good is not my good is not Mr. Smith's good...yet "wine experts" make the effort to imply those that don't enjoy THEIR wine are simply not sophisticated enough in their brain or pallent. Hmmm....LOL...seems I just read someone ignorantly pushing that crap...LOL! Seriously...I'm laughing here! Thank you.
There are such a things as complex and sophisticated wines, but it sounds like either a) you haven't had any, or b) don't have the palate to make the distinction.
Thanks....I needed a good laugh to start my day. LOL! Change in temp or airiation does not a complex wine make. LOL! LOL! You want to try my complex water while you're at it! LOL!
Brainwashed beyond redemption!
Seriously....try bothering to find the real experters which study taste and yes...even wine...this is not my theory...and thus far, as far as the theory of wine and taste goes, it's the only truism which is supported by double blind taste tests. If you want to imagine anything else, please go ahead...I'm sure not stopping you. After all, laughter is a gift to the world. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Hmmm... seems like you're an idiot. ;)
LOL!
Let me get this straight....you do a snobbish ritual that makes you look silly and then you do the only thing that matters....smell and taste the wine it self! Since no one with half a brain is going to send back a bottle based soley on the oder of a cork...those that smell the cork are truly ignorant or a dumb ass. This is a factually based statement as it's been proven time and time again based on taste tests. Only the ignorant or egotistical elitist believes the cork has any value as it relates to taste or quality of wine.
At the end of the day, the only thing to remember about wine is that if YOU like it, then it's good. Price, vintage, varietal, etc., has absolutely nothing to do with it. People just tend to feel pressured into buying expensive wines and doing stupid human tricks at the table for fear of looking stupid.
Which means...wine experts are for no body...yet it doesn't stop idiots from listening to these dummies. I completely agree with this assertion!
I'm really not sure what to say...is this a joke or for real?
They cost more to make and are much more rare than a can of Bud. They will ALWAYS have higher social status because of this.
...please don't tell me you smell the cork...
Actually, most "fine wines" cost more because of the name attached and has little to do with the cost of production. Obviously, cost of production is a factor, but it is not the most significant factor; well, very rarely. Simple fact is, if a "fine wine" maker places ihs/her name on a bottle, they can sell it for more. Why? It's called branding and is commonly done for the ignorant masses in just about every market segment. With wine, it's mostly because so many people like to pretend they are more sophisticated than everyone else, will buy it simply because 1) it's more expensive, and 2) it's bottled by a "fine wine" name.
Wine tasting IS SNAKE OIL; 100% so. Here's what happens. You get used to tasting specific characteristics of certain types of wine and eventually your brain no longer registers the tastes like you once did. The same is 100% true for vision, smell, and hearing. You then move on to a new wine which offers new flavors (stimulus) that your tongue could not previously discern. It's now a "fine wine" because it's drank by someone that drinks a lot of wine and has effectively neutered part of their taste buds. Repeat and rinse.
In other words, they are forced to move from good tasting wines to more and more obscure tastes because they drink too much wine. Then, because they drink too much wine, they present themselves as a tasting expert and can only explain the fact that they like their expensive wines and you don't because they have established a taste for fine wines, which others can not hope to appreciate. In reality, either they've brainwashed themselves into liking something that tastes like crap (which is surprisingly easy to do), to feel superior, or they've temporarily killed off part of their sensory development, forcing them to move to crappier and crappier tasting wines in an effort to continue drinking too much wine, while hoping to find some taste that can still reach their brain through their abused buds.
This is why there is no such thing as "good wine", nor, "complex wine", nor, "sophisticated wine". If there were, a vast majority would be able to agree what exactly what that is via double blind tests; as can be done with good food. And by the way, good food is almost always NEVER complex. Why? Because it hides flavors and almost universally makes people agree that it tastes bad, or certainly not as good.
Hmmm....maybe I should start a new type of "ultra fine foods", which tastes like crap and when people say they don't like it, I can charge them $200 a plate and simply inform them their pallet isn't sophisticated enough to appreciate the fine and complex flavors of their meal....but they could if they decided they wanted to pretend they knew more then everyone else. Some could then go on to become "ultra fine food" snobs...which the rest of us can laugh at...just like any of us do with "wine snobs".