Re: Database Performance?

From: Andrew Snow <andrew(at)modulus(dot)org>
To: Robert Berger <rwb(at)vtiscan(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Database Performance?
Date: 2002-02-17 23:02:07
Message-ID: 20020218100207.A479@esper.modulus.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Doesn't PostgreSQL's better locking and query optimising mean that it
performs better in multi-user situations?

- Andrew

On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 05:49:55PM -0500, Robert Berger wrote:
> This argument is out of date. MySQL currently supports
> transactions, foreign
> keys, and outer joins. (4.1 will support subselects)
>
> As for fault tolerance, MySQL has built in support for replication.
>
> A couple years ago I converted a project from MySQL to PostgreSQL
> because
> of MySQL's lack of features. I am now in the process of converting
> back to
> MySQL because of the performance improvements and replication.
>
>
> >
> > Be a little bit careful about benchmarks. Whether postgresql or
> > mysql is
> > faster depends on what you're doing. If all you want to do is the
> > occasional
> > insert and lots and lots of simple selects, mysql (or even grep)
> > will beat
> > postgres. If you want to do subselects, transactions, foreign
> > keys, outer
> > joins, fault tolerence or anything else that makes a database a
> > database,
> > mysql just can't do it.
> >
> > See if MySQL and PostgreSQL satisfy your business requirements and then
> > decide which one you want.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephan Szabo 2002-02-18 01:10:11 Re: referential integrity problem
Previous Message Robert Berger 2002-02-17 22:49:55 Re: Database Performance?