Umm....gamma? Drew Northup, N1XIM
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hans Kristian Rosbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 4:10 AM > To: DBMAIL Developers Mailinglist > Subject: Re: [Dbmail-dev] Re: Gerrit's Speed issue............ > > > On Sun, 2004-10-10 at 01:27, Aaron Stone wrote: > > 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). > > I do not think dbmail should have any kind of specific (by default) > support for mysql 4.1 in the stable releases. It is after all Gamma > version, not even Alpha yet. Same goes for any other software that has > not reached a feature/api freeze yet. > > It is therefore not much use to benchmark non-stable versions to decide > what is best for a production environment. Even Beta and RC releases > may have minor/major bugs that affect performance either way, or even > lacking proper locking. This can result in better or worse performance, > but almost always less stability. > > Another thing to consider is what todays distributions offer, an end > user might not want to compile mysql/pgsql from scratch. (yes RPM's > might exist). Fedora/Redhat still uses mysql 3. > > -=Dead2=- > > >
