That's basically right. There's still a feeling out there that MySQL is the faster database for selects and such, though I have seen benchmarks all over the board on that. And it is quite clear that with version 7.1 (I believe) Postgres has at least closed that speed gap considerably.
In terms of transactions *please someone who cares about such things correct me if I am wrong* MySQL should catch up with Postgres very, very soon. In terms of features, again, there really isn't any possible debate here: Postgres has the best feature set of the two, hands down - views and triggers are the big ones on my wish list for MySQL. I think the only thing MySQL does (that I care about) that Postgres doesn't is full-text indexing, though I may be wrong about that. The only thing preventing me from switching to PG is the lack of a Windows version (I know, I know...), which, for reasons I won't get into here, simply eliminates PG as an option for me - at least for the applications I am working on. >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob >Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 8:30 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [expert] databases for linux > > > >> »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 > > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
