[ic] postgres vs mysql
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:16:21 -0800
so it sounds like postgress is the real solution.
So what caveats do I need to watch for in switching
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Dafoe" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 17 January, 2001 20:24
Subject: Re: [ic] postgres vs mysql
> > MySQL 3.23.15 introduced experimental support for Berkeley DB to handle
> > transactions (5/9/2000).
> The berkeleydb route to transactions is a kludge, mysql using
> runs at a fraction of the speed of any other database server I have ever
> > So, I think MySQL is alive and kicking....Yes, I like MySQL. But with
> > that said and done, I have heard good stuff about PostgresQL 7.0, and I
> > on checking it out.
> We used to be an all-mysql shop but switched to postgres about 8
> back as version 7 just offers too much over mysql. I was aware of the
> availability of the berkeleydb flavor of mysql but until the code is more
> refined I don't consider that anything other than a novelty. Implementing
> transactional support this far into the software's life and then having to
> refine the code to get the performance back up will be a significant feat.
> I suspect that postgres will remain ahead for quite some time, the primary
> area for improvement would be blob support and a more advanced
> security/permissions system. Mysql now has the start of replication, I
> would expect to see that coming in postgres also. It just looks like the
> mysql team has their work cut out for them whereas the postgres team
> really have anything too intricate that needs to be done. Now lets see
> of those development teams take on multi-phase commit and then we will be
> Mysql does seem to still be more widely used by far, it does have a
> serious foothold, and there is nothing wrong with it.
> Interchange-users mailing list
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.226 / Virus Database: 108 - Release Date: 1/5/2001