> »Joseph Braddock« sagte am 2002-02-20 um 19:16:20 -0600 : > > I'd have to concur with Rob. Postgres seems to be a very feature rich > > and stable database. We are looking to moving some of our Oracle > > Well, MySQL *has* transactions and stored procedures (not as good as > Oracles, though). And I think sub-selects are also available in 4.x, > no? >
I read an intresting (but admitidly possibly wrong) document some time ago comparing MySQL and Postgres. MySQL was seen to be an SQL frond end/interface to a file based system giving very very quick select access, but lacking high end features. Wheras Postgres was seen to be a slower but more feature rich system. I have since seen recent stats (I know - you can make em say what ya want) comparing the latest greatest postgres that shows it competing on speed with MySQL on selects. But back to this article I read and transactions. The main difference had something to with Atomic transactions I think. It was kinda saying that MySQL's transactions were a surface level function only causing horrible things to happen within the DB and risking all sorts of corruption should something go wrong with the DB during the transaction whereas Postgres's transactions were atomic (lots of detail about what that meant but I forget) giving it extra marks for reliability. Rob
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
