Re: MySQL has transactions

I currently use both and here's my quick sound-bite summary of the things
I have used and like from each one. I won't go into the stuff I don't like
so as to avoid the start of a flame war. If you want, email me and we can
discuss it off the list.

MySQL 3.32.x
----------------
* "heap" table type (create temporary table in RAM)
* good disaster-recovery tools
* excellent documentation (online documentation forum), GNU info file
* some useful extensions to SQL (REPLACE, DROP <table> IF EXISITS, SHOW
TABLES)
* very flexible config files
* easy to upgrade between versions

PostgreSQL 7.1 beta
----------------
* mature transaction support
* stored procedures in SQL, PL/PgSQL, Perl, and TCL
* triggers, foreign keys
* more complete SQL (UNION, EXISTS, CREATE VIEW)
* excellent shell (psql)
* very friendly/well organized development team and mailing list :-)
* JDBC type 4 driver
* user-defined data types

Basically I have used MySQL for some web-based projects written in PHP
where most of the logic is application logic and the database needs are
reasonably simple, but need to be fast and stable. I generally have found
it to work well in that regard.

For some Java applications I am working on that require the use of an
application server, and have more extensive database logic, I use Pg.
Depending on your needs you may be able to use either one, although my
bias is usually to go with Pg since it's generally more featureful and
recent benchmarks have shown it to be faster under heavy loads.

Hope this helps.

Norm

--------------------------------------
Norman Clarke
Combimatrix Corp Software Development
Harbour Pointe Tech Center
6500 Harbour Heights Pkwy, Suite 301
Mukilteo, WA 98275

tel: 425.493.2240
fax: 425.493.2010
--------------------------------------

On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, David Wall wrote:

> Now that MySQL has transaction support through Berkeley DB lib, and it's
> always had way more data types, what are the main advantages postgresql has
> over it? I don't think mysql has subselects and such, but they did add a
> master-slave replication feature as well as online reorganization (perhaps
> locks tables like vacuum?).
>
> Anybody used both of the current releases who can comment?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
>