On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 11:17:24AM +0100, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> On 2005-12-01 14:04:04 -0500, Rob Kinyon wrote:
> > As for strength ... Oracle just bought the company that owns the
> > InnoDB table type. If it wasn't good, Oracle wouldn't have bought it.
>
> I suspect that Oracle had a very dif
On 2005-12-01 14:04:04 -0500, Rob Kinyon wrote:
> As for strength ... Oracle just bought the company that owns the
> InnoDB table type. If it wasn't good, Oracle wouldn't have bought it.
I suspect that Oracle had a very different motivation in buying InnoDB.
Controlling core technology used by you
On Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:05:17 -0500, "Jesse Erlbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hey Jeff --
> > Regarding teh rest of your email, I have got to agree with you, most
> > web apps use way more resources than they could possibly need, but you
> > know what ? As a counter to your argument if yo
Aaron Dancygier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just look at the list of companies that use mysql. Would google and yahoo
use it if it werent up to par?
Corporate entities (i.e. corporate managers) make decisions that are not
always generated from the same motivations as the rest of us. Google a
At 2:05 PM -0500 12/1/05, Jesse Erlbaum wrote:
I really don't think your "SQL Lite" analogy is a valid one. Oracle,
PgSQL and MySQL are hugely popular. SQL Lite is a skunk works with no
proven track record.
Quick Google hits check:
2,250,000 for "Oracle" +rdbms
756,000 for "MySQL" +rdbm
Maybe you should try its correct spelling, SQLite :)
On 12/1/05, Jesse Erlbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Jeff --
>
> > Regarding teh rest of your email, I have got to agree with you, most
> > web apps use way more resources than they could possibly need, but you
> > know what ? As a counter
Hey Jeff --
> Regarding teh rest of your email, I have got to agree with you, most
> web apps use way more resources than they could possibly need, but you
> know what ? As a counter to your argument if you needed Oracle you'd
> just use Oracle VS PgSQL, in my life, if i only needed MySQL, i'd us
>
> I would just like to note that speed and reliability are largely
> dependent on the transaction profile of your application. If your
> application is read heavy, MySQL is a sound choice. However if your
> application consists mostly of database writes, PostgreSQL's MVCC [1]
> architecture and
> in the next release. However, PgSQL is still slow, hard to use, and of
> questionable reliability.
Slow, i'm not going to argue cause it's "fast enough for me" and I
don't have numbers.
Hard to use ? What do you find hard ? I find it aboslutly devine to
use, and mysql to be cludgy and awkward.
Jesse Erlbaum wrote:
Hi John --
The clear choice from these responses is Postgres because of
its internal
strength over MySql
I've used both MySQL and PgSQL. I've also used Oracle, Sybase, DB2, MS
SQL Server, and Informix. I've also been developing web apps for quite
a long time, so I fe
Hey Fred --
> I would just like to note that speed and reliability are largely
> dependent on the transaction profile of your application. If your
> application is read heavy, MySQL is a sound choice. However if your
> application consists mostly of database writes, PostgreSQL's MVCC [1]
>
Jesse Erlbaum wrote:
Hey Fred --
I would just like to note that speed and reliability are largely
dependent on the transaction profile of your application. If your
application is read heavy, MySQL is a sound choice. However if your
application consists mostly of database writes, PostgreSQL'
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 12:24:12PM -0500, Jesse Erlbaum wrote:
> Hi John --
>
> > The clear choice from these responses is Postgres because of
> > its internal
> > strength over MySql
>
> I've used both MySQL and PgSQL. I've also used Oracle, Sybase, DB2, MS
> SQL Server, and Informix. I've al
Hi John --
> The clear choice from these responses is Postgres because of
> its internal
> strength over MySql
I've used both MySQL and PgSQL. I've also used Oracle, Sybase, DB2, MS
SQL Server, and Informix. I've also been developing web apps for quite
a long time, so I feel my opinions carry
Jesse Erlbaum - thanks much for your very insightful comments - we stand
corrected - we're back in the MySql camp!!! - John Armstrong - Sacramento
From: John Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>There was cross-agreement that Postgres is slower than MySql,
Maybe this is irrelevant, but... don't forget to consider which data is
primarily read-only and might be faster served from a caching system (optimized
for reads instead of writes/transaction
16 matches
Mail list logo
