Martijn Tonies wrote:
Additionally, it is an accepted fact that MySQL is faster than the mighty, mighty PostgreSQL.
No, it is not. It is an accepted fact that MySQL is faster than PostgreSQL for certain tasks.
The PostgreSQL developers say that they are faster than most commercial databases in their normal fsync mode.
GreatBridge LLC claimed their PostgreSQL version was faster than most commercial databases, in their specific benchmark. I am not aware of any such claims from the current PGDG.
But there are a few gripes I have with comparing databases on just performance:
- Performance data is not portable. You can't say that just because one database is faster in one case, it will be faster in another case too.
- Performance is overrated. For most applications, there is some treshhold after which a database is 'fast enough'. I don't care if I can serve 1200 or 1201 customers, if I only have 20 and grow at a rate slower than Moore's Law.
- In most cases, you are not measuring database performance, but DBA performance or developer performance.
I can think of a few others:
- stored procedures (not finished with MySQL) - triggers (not even on the roadmap with MySQL?) - check constraints (please, Heiki?!)
I'm a constraint-freak, if you like. I want my database to check the
data. In all sorts of possible ways...
Triggers are slated for the 5.1 timeframe, along with FK constraints for all table types (including BDB?).
Check constraints have beem discussed in various presentations (at the 2003 MySQL conference, they were mentioned specifically with regard to MySQL's compliance to SQL92 and SQL:1999).
I expect them in the 5.1 timeframe too, since you can implement check constraints in triggers. But the question remains if we can expect a stable 5.1 before 2006.
Jochem
--
I don't get it
immigrants don't work
and steal our jobs
- Loesje
-- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
