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 This argument is out of date.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
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? |