On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 05:53:47PM +0000, David Cantrell wrote: >MySQL is faster, easier, less reliable and less capable. Going from MySQL >to PostgreSQL is pretty easy, you just need to be careful about permissions >on tables and using sequences instead of auto_increments. Going the other >way is far too much like hard work.
This matches my experience in all respects. I wish I'd learned Postgres first; it's too easy to get into bad habits with MySQL. Somebody called MySQL "an SQL interface onto a fast flat-file storage system"; there's some truth to that, and it really doesn't act like "a database" the way Postgres goes. >> How close is PostgreSQL to Oracle in terms of its SQL capabilities? >It's done everything that I've expected it to. Triggers and SPs can be >written in several languages with PostgreSQL. Including Perl, assuming you're entirely mad. Actually, it's not _that_ bad, but still not something I'd want to use in production. >I haven't had a chance to compare them against >each other running on big beastly machines. I don't know what the breakeven dataset size is, but it's certainly the case IME that Postgres is faster for "small" datasets and Oracle faster for "large" ones. Roger
