Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: [snip]... while PostgreSQL totally whipped MySQL once the > going got tough -- it's built to handle complex queries, and it's also > built to withstand the pressure of many simultaneous users. MySQL is > not, and takes a really bad performance hit when loaded down. The > main reason for this is very primitive locking algorithms in MySQL.
Which is exactly why InnoDB uses row locking rather than table locking. InnoDB tables are available by default in MySQL 4.0 and I believe that they *are* the default in 4.1 and higher (e.g. 5.0 development). > However, this data is not very new, and from what I've been told, the > people at MySQL have been reimplementing their locking to work the way > PostgreSQL does, and they're starting to catch up. MySQL is still > much more primitive, and has severe limitations compared to proper > database systems. Which is precisely the next piece of work that MySQL has been doing in the MySQL 4.1 series (which reached Gamma status this very week) by adding much, much more of SQL92 into the command parser. MySQL 5.0 development is focusing on stored procedures and further SQL92 features. So... all criticisms of MySQL are exactly on target. But so what? On the down side, we need to eschew some features and best practices in order to support MySQL. On the up side, support is actively being added to MySQL and we can just roll right along with it, incorportating features into future version of DBMail and raising the bar on our minimum MySQL requirements as we go. It would be really, really nice if someone could do some latest-version benchmarks between MySQL and PostgreSQL. Bouncing around heresay and personal preferences only makes me want to support both camps even more :-P Aaron --
