On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:49:28 -0700, "Michael L Torrie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > But if you want to base it soley on technical grounds, there is no > contest, according to what I've been told. Postgres is better hands > down. I have a friend (famous last words I know) who does large-scale > database programming for a living and tells me MS SQL is based on the > old Sybase engine, which has serious locking issues. He claims to have > code that can, with just a few concurrent queries, bring MS SQL, Sybase, > and even DB2 to their knees. (MySQL too, obviously.). The only > databases that can handle some of their stuff are Oracle and PostgreSQL. > Bear in mind I'm not talking about the the granularity of the lock > (MySQL's locking is much finer now than it used to be) but rather the > techniques used to enforce data integrity.
Well, isolation implementation isn't really related to data integrity. And the downside to MVCC in postgresql is that vacuuming can be a pain. (I'm not sure how Oracle works internally; it doesn't need vacuum. But then the core oracle engine is around 2-3x slower than postgresql, so maybe that has something to do with it.) -Jonathan -- C++ is history repeated as tragedy. Java is history repeated as farce. --Scott McKay /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
