Re: Postgres performance comments from a MySQL user

> > If we were to start again
> > from scratch now, I'd still use InnoDB over postgres unless the
> > performance picked up with postgres recently.
> >
> > Keep in mind our application is very write-heavy so your numbers may
> > be different. Does postgres still keep the old row versions in the
> > primary-key B-Tree? If it does I doubt performance improved much for
> > write-heavy apps, that was a very poor design decision by them. InnoDB
> > takes the Oracle route of moving old row versions to a seperate
> > on-disk data structure.

1) A write-heavy app will almost certainly be faster with Postgres.

2) Postgres has had many speed improvements over the last few years

3) If your point was to move to a relational database, then you should
choose Postgres. MySQL, although it's SQL, hardly qualifies as relational

For example, MySQL does not have:

* Views
* Triggers
* Stored Procedures
* Subselects (although they may have added this one)

And then when you want to do real transactions, MySQLs speed slows way
down.

If you are moving _to_ a database system, it seems pointless to stop
halfway and go with MySQL, when you can go the full way with Postgres.

Jon

>
> Does what he say make sense? If so, has the situation changed? BNasically,
> I need something intelligent to say to my boss to either counter or
> mitigate his perception.
>
> Thanks
>
> Take care,
> Jay
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>