Re: mysql....postgres

[iain truskett]

* Kiarash Em. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [11 Dec 2001 06:29]:

> mySQL vs postgreSQL?!?!

> check this out

> http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim2705.php3?page=1

> ;)

Hmm. Seems rather out of date wrt postgres.

8kb rows? Is that of data? Because postgres quite happily has field
types that allow arbitrary blobs of text or data. I'd probably say that
anyone who hits data limits like that has some issues with the design of
their database itself rather than the DBMS.

The article is also somewhat self-contradictory:

"Postgres is making headway in the performance and stability
departments."

"MySQL loses points in the long-term stability department."

"Postgres will run smoothly for extended periods of time without
trouble."

When it comes to transactions:

"Finally, for the hardest-core developers, Postgres could be pretty
slick. Foreign keys, views, subselects, and transactions can all be
pretty cool -- if you need them and you will make any use of them.
If you don't need them or won't use them, then you're probably
better off with MySQL and its superior performance."

But on the PG page it raves about transactions. For some reason the
author doesn't recommend you investigate transactions.



Then again, I ran MySQL for a year, Oracle for a year and have been
running PostgreSQL for half a year so far.

MySQL was irritating due to its lack of subqueries and transactions (a
somewhat half-baked table type is now available that supports
transactions, rather than it being part of the core of the DBMS, plus,
is it actually release quality yet?). Plus it would frequently decide to
not handle a query for no apparent reason.

Oracle was too large and complex for my purposes. I wasn't willing to
spend the amount of time and effort needed to properly configure and
administer it. Go for Oracle if you have a dedicated DBA and need its
features. It's a good program, just worthy of the Sledgehammer award.

PostgreSQL offers appropriate speed, transactions and fkeys. The
majority of my websites use multiple tables in their database design.
Assorted pages update data as necessary and this data needs to be
reflected in multiple tables. Thus, transactions are superb. I can do
the operations and if any of them fail, I can just rollback, rather than
trying to do them all backwards.

PostgreSQL and its transactions are stable and well worth the effort of
initially learning. All part of the Laziness that Larry talks about. You
can either do it all manually, and thus not necessarily properly, or you
can spend initial effort learning about transactions and have it pay off
in the amount of time you recoup later.


cheers,
-- 
iain.  

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: mysql....postgres

[Curtis Poe]

--- Mike Gargiullo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oracle is 
> 
> How many inserts/second are you taking about?

If anyone would like to follow-up on this, it might be better to email me directly 
rather than
continue this very off-topic thread :)

I don't know how many inserts per second.  We're working in the dark, here.  We have a 
product
that has been relatively successful in keeping our client's costs down, so we now have 
a
particular industry association which has said that if we develop the next phase of 
our product,
they're going to market it to their manufacturers and dealers.  We already have some 
very large
industry players who've come to us telling us that they're on board as soon as we 
finish it. 
Unfortunately, this requires a complete revamping of the way we handle inventory for 
them, but it
earns us a mind-boggling revenue stream if we can deliver and if they follow through 
on their
commitment.

Since this allows manufacturers and retailers to have POS, inventory management, 
e-commerce,
real-time site customization and a true client-server architecture (rather than being 
forced to
rely solely on a Web-based system) we have a rather large database that is still 
growing.  I just
can't recommend migrating from MS SQL Server unless I get better information on the 
databases
under consideration.  MySQL just won't cut it.  Postgres looks interesting, but I just 
haven't
found enough evidence that it will really handle what we need.  Hence, Oracle looks 
like a
promising choice.

Side note:  MS SQL Server has been a huge bottleneck for us because our DBA didn't 
know it very
well (he has been fired) and it keeps crashing, often taking down the box with it.  We 
have some
insite as to why it's been failing, but it's such a pain in the rear, that we're sick 
of it. 
Plus, we can't run it on Linux.

Cheers,
Curtis "Ovid" Poe

=
Senior Programmer
Onsite! Technology (http://www.onsitetech.com/)
"Ovid" on http://www.perlmonks.org/

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: mysql....postgres

[Mike Gargiullo]

Oracle is 

How many inserts/second are you taking about?

-Original Message-
From: Curtis Poe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 3:52 PM
To: Etienne Marcotte
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mysqlpostgres



--- Etienne Marcotte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MySQL is about speed, unless you do tons of inserts and absolutely
can't
> afford table locking, go with mysql..

Regrettably, we do have to handle tons of inserts, so this is
problematic.  The software that
we're evaluating databases for offers complete B-B-C support for an
entire industry, so we may be
forced to take a look at Oracle, too.

Cheers,
Curtis "Ovid" Poe

=
Senior Programmer
Onsite! Technology (http://www.onsitetech.com/)
"Ovid" on http://www.perlmonks.org/

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mysql....postgres

[Curtis Poe]

--- Etienne Marcotte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MySQL is about speed, unless you do tons of inserts and absolutely can't
> afford table locking, go with mysql..

Regrettably, we do have to handle tons of inserts, so this is problematic.  The 
software that
we're evaluating databases for offers complete B-B-C support for an entire industry, 
so we may be
forced to take a look at Oracle, too.

Cheers,
Curtis "Ovid" Poe

=
Senior Programmer
Onsite! Technology (http://www.onsitetech.com/)
"Ovid" on http://www.perlmonks.org/

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mysql....postgres

[Etienne Marcotte]

well

mySQL *DO* now support transactions with innoDB

www.innoDB.com

There is a guy from the innoDB team also on the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that can probably answer all your questions.

MySQL is about speed, unless you do tons of inserts and absolutely can't
afford table locking, go with mysql..

Plus I read that the settings of his mysql weren't good so that's why
the mysql was crashing after many connections.

Etienne

Curtis Poe wrote:
> 
> --- "Kiarash Em." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > mySQL vs postgreSQL?!?!
> >
> > check this out
> >
> > http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim2705.php3?page=1
> >
> > ;)
> 
> While we're on the subject of databases, my company is considering switching from MS 
>SQL Server.
> We absolutely need transactions, so MySQL is out of the question.  However, while I 
>was intrigued
> by Postgres, I told the CTO that I would not endorse it unless I can see empirical 
>(not
> anecdotal!) evidence that it can support what we need.  He pointed out that, by my 
>logic, I can't
> endorse MS SQL Server because their license *specifically forbids* publishing 
>benchmarks of their
> database if you accept their licesnse agreement.  Hmmm
> 
> And yes, we build our Web sites with Perl, so this is kind of on-topic, right? :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Curtis "Ovid" Poe
> --
> 
> =
> Senior Programmer
> Onsite! Technology (http://www.onsitetech.com/)
> "Ovid" on http://www.perlmonks.org/
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
Etienne Marcotte
Specifications Management - Quality Control
Imperial Tobacco Ltd. - Montreal (Qc) Canada
514.932.6161 x.4001

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mysql....postgres

[Curtis Poe]

--- "Kiarash Em." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> mySQL vs postgreSQL?!?!
> 
> check this out
> 
> http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim2705.php3?page=1
> 
> ;)

While we're on the subject of databases, my company is considering switching from MS 
SQL Server. 
We absolutely need transactions, so MySQL is out of the question.  However, while I 
was intrigued
by Postgres, I told the CTO that I would not endorse it unless I can see empirical (not
anecdotal!) evidence that it can support what we need.  He pointed out that, by my 
logic, I can't
endorse MS SQL Server because their license *specifically forbids* publishing 
benchmarks of their
database if you accept their licesnse agreement.  Hmmm

And yes, we build our Web sites with Perl, so this is kind of on-topic, right? :)

Cheers,
Curtis "Ovid" Poe
--

=
Senior Programmer
Onsite! Technology (http://www.onsitetech.com/)
"Ovid" on http://www.perlmonks.org/

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mysql....postgres

[Kiarash Em.]

mySQL vs postgreSQL?!?!

check this out

http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim2705.php3?page=1

;)





>From: "Brett W. McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: nafiseh saberi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: mysqlpostgres
>Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 06:57:41 -0500 (EST)
>
>On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, nafiseh saberi wrote:
>
> > why do you use always "mysql" and
> > not "postgres" ??
>
>I use PostgreSQL myself, have since like 1997 or so.
>
>-- Brett
>   http://www.chapelperilous.net/
>
>Booze is the answer.  I don't remember the question.
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>


_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mysql....postgres

[_brian_d_foy]

In article <000801c17e49$4a172df0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nafiseh Saberi) wrote:

> why do you use always "mysql" and
> not "postgres" ??

who said nobody uses postgresql?
-- 
brian d foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Perl services for hire
CGI Meta FAQ - http://www.perl.org/CGI_MetaFAQ.html
Troubleshooting CGI scripts - http://www.perl.org/troubleshooting_CGI.html

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mysql....postgres

[Brett W. McCoy]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, nafiseh saberi wrote:

> why do you use always "mysql" and
> not "postgres" ??

I use PostgreSQL myself, have since like 1997 or so.

-- Brett
  http://www.chapelperilous.net/

Booze is the answer.  I don't remember the question.


-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: mysql....postgres

[Djoko Priyono]

nafiseh saberi menulis pd tgl 06 December 2001 Thursday 06:29 pm sbb:
:: hi dear team...
::
:: why do you use always "mysql" and
:: not "postgres" ??

Not always use mysql, I use Postgres for my database.

Regards,
Djoko Priyono
www.dnet.net.id
::
:: thx for your time.
:: 
::   Best regards. Nafiseh Saberi
::www.iraninfocenter.net
::  www.sorna.net
:: Beaty is in the eye of the beholder.
::  _

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]