MySQL and PostgreSQL are starting to move together as far as I can see.
MySQL has the _option_ of transactional database formats (you can use both
normal MyISAM tables and transactional tables). MySQL 4.0 has all those
various features you speak of. On all too many applications, MySQL kicks
ass. Admitedly, if you do massive complex database applications, PostgreSQL
can smoke it when done right, but MySQL works great for most tasks. It's
not even a matter of which is better or how to compare them. It is a
question of 'what is your purpose for the database' and then deciding based
on the intended purpose.
I did mention that it would be running BOTH MySQL and PostgreSQL, and
not just one. I use them both for various purposes, depending on the need
and am trying to move it to a seperate server to increase the speed of
queries on BOTH database systems. It's not a question of which is better,
but a question of what will maximize output for cost.
I think you may have misinterpreted the question
--
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Michel POURE" <jm(dot)poure(at)freesurf(dot)fr>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "Mike Rogers" <temp6453(at)hotmail(dot)com>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Ultimate DB Server
> At 13:07 28/10/01 -0400, you wrote:
> >I'm questioning whether anyone has done benchmarks on various hardware
for
> >PGSQL and MySQL. I'm either thinking dual P3-866's, Dual AMD-1200's,
etc.
> >I'm looking for benchmarks of large queries on striped -vs- non-striped
> >volumes, different processor speeds, etc.
>
> Hello Mike,
>
> IMHO, you should consider *simple* software optimization first.
>
> Hardware can bring a 2x gain whereas software optimization can boost an
> application by 10x. Until now, I never heard or read about a real
*software
> optimization* benchmark between MySQL and PostgreSQL.
>
> Software optimization includes the use of views, triggers, rules, PL/pgSQL
> server side programming. By definition, it is hard to compare MySQL with
> PostgreSQL because MySQL *does not include* these important features (and
> probably will never do).
>
> I see at least two easy cases where PostgreSQL beats MySQL:
> 1) Create a simple relational DB with triggers storing values instead of
> performing LEFT JOINS. Increase the number of simultaneous queries. MySQL
> will die at x queries and PostgreSQL will still be working at 5x queries.
> 2) Use PL/pgSQL to perform complex jobs normally devoted to an application
> server (Java, PHP) on a separate platform. In some case (recursive loops
> for example), network traffic can be divided by 100. As a result,
> PostgreSQL can be 10x faster because everything is performed server-side.
>
> This is to say that, in some circomstances, PostgreSQL running on an i586
> with IDE drive beats MySQL on a double Pentium. In real life, applications
> are always optimized at software level first before hardware level. This
is
> why PostsgreSQL is *by nature* better than MySQL.
>
> Unless MySQL gets better, there is no real challenge in comparing both
systems.
>
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel POURE
>
>