Re: [OT] MySQL vs PostgreSQL and SAP DB (was RE: Struts and Large ResultSet)

2002-09-09 Thread Joel Rees 

Peter A. J. Pilgrim commented:

> Robert J. Sanford, Jr. wrote:
> > For my money, or the lack thereof :), I would much rather use PostgreSQL or
> > SAP DB than MySQL for both feature AND, believe it or not, performance
> > reasons. One of the developers on the SourceForge project did a very nice
> > comparison of how SF would run on both MySQL and PostgreSQL and he was very
> > surprised at the results. You can read about it at:
> > http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim2705.php3. Of course, he was using
> > PHP instead of Struts :)
> > 
> 
> The article appears to be lauding MySQL features albeit 1999 on
> some speed issues. I definitely miss the subselect SQL syntax which
> is definitely useful with Oracle and Sybase.

PostgreSQL had a short thread on this:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=postgresql-general&m=102987283829569&w=2

You do want to follow the link to infoworld in this post, BTW

> MySQL 4.0 Beta is out and wait for it. Full Text Match capabilities.
> Is this the end of Lucene or eSearch ? No. I like the bit about
> not returning the whole table of data if the query matches more
> than half the number of rows in the database table.
> 
> As for LargeResultSets I don't think Sybase has rowset limit
> optimisation. Oracle I know a ROWID reverse keyword or is it
> ROWINDEX I cant remember.
> 
> > For my own personal work I chose PostgreSQL for several features that
> > MySQL - nested queries, views, triggers and stored procedures being the
> > biggies. Transactions weren't available with MySQL at the time I made my
> > decision but, even with their current level of support for transactions, I
> > cannot conceive of doing without the other features, views and stored
> > procedures especially.
> > 
> > And that is why I don't understand Sun's push for MySQL. Are there any
> > enterprise level projects (heck, even department level projects) that you
> > don't want to use views and stored procedures with?
> > 
> 
> Sun's push for MySQL. Where did you read about this ?

You'd have to follow a couple of links from the one above, so --

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/08/14/020814hnmcnealyint.xml

about half-way down the page.

-- 
Joel Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail:

RE: [OT] MySQL vs PostgreSQL and SAP DB (was RE: Struts and Large ResultSet)

2002-09-09 Thread Robert J. Sanford, Jr. 

For my money, or the lack thereof :), I would much rather use PostgreSQL or
SAP DB than MySQL for both feature AND, believe it or not, performance
reasons. One of the developers on the SourceForge project did a very nice
comparison of how SF would run on both MySQL and PostgreSQL and he was very
surprised at the results. You can read about it at:
http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim2705.php3. Of course, he was using
PHP instead of Struts :)

For my own personal work I chose PostgreSQL for several features that
MySQL - nested queries, views, triggers and stored procedures being the
biggies. Transactions weren't available with MySQL at the time I made my
decision but, even with their current level of support for transactions, I
cannot conceive of doing without the other features, views and stored
procedures especially.

And that is why I don't understand Sun's push for MySQL. Are there any
enterprise level projects (heck, even department level projects) that you
don't want to use views and stored procedures with?

rjsjr

> -Original Message-
> From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 3:31 PM
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Struts and Large ResultSet
>
>
> And just above that he said:
>
> "If you want to use Oracle, by all means, please do. I think the issue
> Oracle faces is they're trying desperately to embrace Linux, and
> Oracle's "unbreakable Linux" (pitch) certainly makes a statement. My
> retort would be unbreakable MySQL."
>
> Personally, I think it's kind of insane to tout MySQL as anything near
> "unbreakable".  Unless they're ready to push some heavy funding into
> MySQL to improve it's ACID-ity, comparing MySQL to Oracle is like
> comparing apples and oranges.  Last I heard, MySQL was implementing
> atomicity -- without rollback -- LOL what *is* that?  I'd much rather
> see them push PostgreSQL or SapDB.  The argument (for MySQL still not
> being ACID compliant) is that they are still trying to figure out how to
> integrate those prinicpals without losing speed.  Maybe Sun could help
> them along; I don't know.  I know this:  you gain somewhere -- you lose
> somewhere.  ... "unbreakable MySQL" -- not unless it changes
> substantially.
>
> Good thread - thanks James.  I hope my views don't offend anyone.  I'm
> not really trying to diss MySQL -- it certainly has it's applications --
> I just think touting it as a solution comparable with Oracle is ... I'm
> not going to say :-)  out of fear of offend people I respect on this
> list.  I don't think it should be done though.  There are people that
> will look to Sun and embrace whatever they see them embrace -- and just
> as whole-heartedly as Sun "seems" to.  I think embracing MySQL so
> strongly would be to their detriment ...
>
> Regards,
>
> Eddie
>
> (How precious is your data to you?  No, *really*?!)
>
> James Mitchell wrote:
>
> >Sorry for getting in late on this one.
> >
> >"I was just at Google, and Google's an all-MySQL shop. Why did
> they do it?
> >Because they looked at DB2 and it was expensive and it didn't offer any
> >added value."  - Jonathan Schwartz
> >
> > Here's the full story:
> > http://news.com.com/2008-1082-947510.html
> >
> >
> >
> >James Mitchell
> >Software Engineer\Struts Evangelist
> >Struts-Atlanta, the "Open Minded Developer Network"
> >http://www.open-tools.org/struts-atlanta
> >
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:

For additional commands, e-mail:




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: