MySQL v. PostgreSQL, continued, was: Microsoft Access - two questions
Lloyd Kvam
python at venix.com
Tue Jul 31 11:18:18 EDT 2007
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 10:39 -0400, Ted Roche wrote:
> >Paul Lussier wrote:
>
> > It is lacking features[1][2], and I've certainly seen plenty (if not most)
> > uses of MySQL completely abuse it to the point where the "developer"
> > completely missed the "R" point RDB[3].
>
> Most programmers are amateurs. Even the really, really good ones.
> Business application programmers follow the same normal curve as most
> everything else: few really, really good ones, few really, really bad
> ones, but the bad ones leave such memorable disasters behind them!
>
> More fuel for the fire... Josh Berkus blogs,
>
> "What is does show is that PostgreSQL and MySQL are very, very close in
> performance today and the outdated belief that MySQL is somehow multiple
> times faster than PostgreSQL is dramatically misplaced. Users should be
> picking a database based on which specific performance features, and
> other features, they need in their database and not out of some ignorant
> assessment that "Database X is way faster." That's pretty much been true
> for years, but the very close benchmark results shows that pretty clearly."
>
> Source:
> http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/soup/archives/benchmark-brouhaha-17939
>
> Competition is Good.
In my experience, key reasons to choose MySQL are:
replication - it is easy to feed changes to remote servers
without the uptime requirements of two-phase commits
easy administration
As a DBMS, it requires more planning in developing an application simply
because of its differences from the competition and the lack of
commit/rollback in its myisam tables.
--
Lloyd Kvam
Venix Corp
More information about the gnhlug-discuss
mailing list