On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
>
> Is it that you must purchase it if you wish to develop commercial
> applications that require it?
And that you cannot sell it.
--
Madarasz Gergely [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's practically impossible to look at a
On Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 01:48:58AM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> After carefully reading over the license of Mysql it seems like it could
> be included in the main
> distribution area.
>
> I am wondering exactly what parts are preventing it from being
> included.
>
> Is it that you must purcha
Please tell me what exactly you like more about mysql in comparison to
PostgreSQL which really is DFSG free.
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meskes, Projekt-Manager| topystem Systemhaus GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]| Europark A2, Adenauerstr. 20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 521
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Meskes, Michael wrote:
> Please tell me what exactly you like more about mysql in comparison to
> PostgreSQL which really is DFSG free.
I find it much faster, it uses less resources... of course it has less
features too, but you dont always need subselects and transactions.
Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 01:48:58AM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> > After carefully reading over the license of Mysql it seems like it could
> > be included in the main
> > distribution area.
> >
> > I am wondering exactly what parts are preventing it from being
> > inclu
Meskes, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please tell me what exactly you like more about mysql in comparison to
> PostgreSQL which really is DFSG free.
1) Speed
2) While neither completely implements SQL92 and newer standards, the
portion that mysql implements is more useful for my application
> Meskes, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please tell me what exactly you like more about mysql in comparison to
> > PostgreSQL which really is DFSG free.
>
On Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 07:55:46PM -0500, Erv Walter wrote:
> 1) Speed
> 2) While neither completely implements SQL92 and newer stan
Raul Miller writes:
> I'm aware of two issues:
>
> (1) mysql is significantly faster
Will comment on this one later.
> (2) postgres forces you to abandon ansi sql for a number of things
> where mysql allows you to use ansi sql.
Which ansi sql feature is missing?
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meske
Gergely Madarasz writes:
> I find it much faster, it uses less resources... of course it has less
> features too, but you dont always need subselects and transactions.
It doesn't have transactions? Whew, I never expected that.
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meskes, Project-Manager| topsystem System
Drake Diedrich writes:
>In some tests I ran, I found that postgres was only capable of 4
> transactions per second in the default configuration. The speed could be
> increased to 80 transactions/sec if you were willing to turn off the
> automatic disk syncing. It is not clear from the mysql d
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Gergely Madarasz writes:
> > I find it much faster, it uses less resources... of course it has less
> > features too, but you dont always need subselects and transactions.
>
> It doesn't have transactions? Whew, I never expected that.
You can lock the
On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 11:03:22AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> No DBMS syncy after each transaction. Most systems do it every 30 seconds.
> Support for that will be added to Postgres later on. And with 80 TPS I think
/usr/doc/postgresql-doc/FAQ.gz
--
2.11) How do I
Drake Diedrich wrote:
...
>/usr/doc/postgresql-doc/FAQ.gz
>--
> 2.11) How do I tune the database engine for better performance?
>
> There are several things that can be done. You can disable fsync() by
> starting the postmaster with a '-o -F' option. T
13 matches
Mail list logo
