Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> There actually were two smgr storage modules in the code we inherited
>> from Berkeley, and I think there were probably more at one time.
> Yes, the second storage manager we had was for WORM drives, or more
> accurately, stubs were left in our code for
Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page writes:
> > Hmm, I think I misread Thom's question. The smgr API used to be far
> > more rigidly designed as I understand it, to allow the possibility of
> > having different storage engines (for example, maybe one that used raw
> > devices). I don't know that any other
On 6/25/2010 4:22 AM, John Gage wrote:
There are features, are there not, that Postgres has that MySQL does not
have?
Yes, a big one would be data integrity. Most people would not consider
data integrity an optional feature in a DBMS, but apparently MySQL does.
Try this in MySQL:
create t
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:48:11 -0700
Rob Wultsch wrote:
> The freedom of the storage engine interface allows for much more
> varied backend characteristics. Some examples:
This is *really* fascinating but pg transactional engine is very
mature and solid.
Before any of the should-be-really-transact
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 09:44:04AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> It could also be argued that having a storage engine API means that
> the query planner/optimiser cannot have nearly as much knowledge
> about how the data is stored and what access characteristics it may
> have thus preventing it from be
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Rob Wultsch wrote:
>> - Innodb : The primary transactional storage engine for MySQL. It does
>> not have all the features of PG (like check contraints), but it has
>> some features (like Compression!!!) whic
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Next up: PostgreSQL stores its system catalogs in transaction safe
> table types, like everything else it stores. MySQL stores its table
> defs in myisam, even if the whole of the db you create is innodb and
> innodb is the default. System
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Rob Wultsch wrote:
> - Innodb : The primary transactional storage engine for MySQL. It does
> not have all the features of PG (like check contraints), but it has
> some features (like Compression!!!) which are *exceptionally* useful.
You do know that pg has compr
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Rob Wultsch wrote:
>> MySQL has several full text search solutions. The built in MyISAM
>> solution is the best known, but there is also an engine for using
>> sphinx.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> And there are features that
Jim Montgomery writes:
> Remove me from your email chain.
Jim, are you trying to win the Jerk of the Month award? There's an
unsubscribe link on every PG list message. All you're accomplishing
with this is to annoy other list members who cannot unsubscribe you.
regards,
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Jim Montgomery wrote:
> Remove me from your email chain.
>
Remove yourself.
--
Rob Wultsch
wult...@gmail.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-ge
Remove me from your email chain.
> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:57:15 -0400
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Need Some Recent Information on the Differences
> between Postgres and MySql
> From: scott.marl...@gmail.com
> To: wult...@gmail.com
> CC: mary.y.w...@boeing.com; pgsql-gene
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Jim Montgomery wrote:
> Remove me from your email chain.
You need to unsubscribe from the mailing list. Until now your weren't
explicitly included on any of the messages that I can see.
http://www.postgresql.org/community/lists/
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: ht
Remove me from your email chain!
> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:13:36 -0400
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Need Some Recent Information on the Differences
> between Postgres and MySql
> From: scott.marl...@gmail.com
> To: jsmg...@numericable.fr
> CC: wult...@gmail.com; mary.y.w...
Remove me from your email chain.
> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:44:34 +0100
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Need Some Recent Information on the Differences
> between Postgres and MySql
> From: dp...@pgadmin.org
> To: andreas.kretsch...@schollglas.com
> CC: pgsql-general@postgresql.or
Dave Page writes:
> Hmm, I think I misread Thom's question. The smgr API used to be far
> more rigidly designed as I understand it, to allow the possibility of
> having different storage engines (for example, maybe one that used raw
> devices). I don't know that any other storage engines were ever
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> Biggest difference between MySQL and PostgreSQL? The developers.
>
>
I like that... It has a nice ring to it.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> This shows several things about the MySQL release philosophy, at least
> at the time. 1: Introducing performance enhancments without thorough
> testing in a production release is A-OK. 2: The fix may or may not
> actually work when it does
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:22 AM, John Gage wrote:
> There are features, are there not, that Postgres has that MySQL does not
> have?
My favorite pgsql feature is partial and functional indexes. For
instance, let's say you have a work queue, and in it you have a boole
called processed. it is 99.
On 25 June 2010 10:50, John Gage wrote:
> In the words of Dwight Eisenhower, I couldn't fail to disagree with you
> less. That said...
>
> Replying to my own post, and on further examination of the MySQL
> documentation, I am astonished to discover that MySQL does not support
> regular expression
In the words of Dwight Eisenhower, I couldn't fail to disagree with
you less. That said...
Replying to my own post, and on further examination of the MySQL
documentation, I am astonished to discover that MySQL does not support
regular expressions much less something like tsvector. Please
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:22 AM, A. Kretschmer
wrote:
> In response to Dave Page :
>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>
>> > Didn't PostgreSQL used to have more than 1 storage engine in the past?
>> > I thought I read somewhere it did, but it was decided it was a
>> > compro
In response to John Gage :
> Forgive me for being somewhat stupid, but is MyISAM a text search
> engine? The Wikipedia article doesn't make it sound like one.
MyISAM provides textsearch and other features, but no referential
integrity. It's just one of many storage engines.
>
> Could you be m
In response to Dave Page :
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>
> > Didn't PostgreSQL used to have more than 1 storage engine in the past?
> > I thought I read somewhere it did, but it was decided it was a
> > compromise on stability and/or quality, so ended up using a single
>
Forgive me for being somewhat stupid, but is MyISAM a text search
engine? The Wikipedia article doesn't make it sound like one.
Could you be more specific as to how, for example, MySQL implements
regular expressions or the tsvector funcitionality?
John
On Jun 25, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Rob W
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
> Didn't PostgreSQL used to have more than 1 storage engine in the past?
> I thought I read somewhere it did, but it was decided it was a
> compromise on stability and/or quality, so ended up using a single
> kick-ass engine?
Yes, many, many mo
On 25 June 2010 09:44, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Rob Wultsch wrote:
>> MySQL has several full text search solutions. The built in MyISAM
>> solution is the best known, but there is also an engine for using
>> sphinx.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> And there are features that MySQL has
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Rob Wultsch wrote:
> MySQL has several full text search solutions. The built in MyISAM
> solution is the best known, but there is also an engine for using
> sphinx.
>
> ...
>
> And there are features that MySQL has that PG does not. Index only
> queries is a massiv
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:22 AM, John Gage wrote:
> There are features, are there not, that Postgres has that MySQL does not
> have?
>
> I refer in particular to things like tsvector.
>
> Am I mistaken in this?
>
> John
>
>
> On Jun 25, 2010, at 3:46 AM, Rob Wultsch wrote:
>
>> unless there was a
There are features, are there not, that Postgres has that MySQL does
not have?
I refer in particular to things like tsvector.
Am I mistaken in this?
John
On Jun 25, 2010, at 3:46 AM, Rob Wultsch wrote:
unless there was a specific reason to migrate
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Wang, Mary Y wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to find some write-ups about the differences between Postgres and
> MySql. A lot of stuff showed up on Google, but most of them are old.
> I saw this wiki over here
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Rob Wultsch wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Scott Marlowe
> wrote:
>> For instant, by default, this will work in mysql:
>>
>> create table test (i int);
>> insert into test (i) values ('');
>>
>> with a warning, but will produce an error in most modern
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> For instant, by default, this will work in mysql:
>
> create table test (i int);
> insert into test (i) values ('');
>
> with a warning, but will produce an error in most modern versions of pgsql.
>
However it is easy to get mostly sane beha
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Wang, Mary Y wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to find some write-ups about the differences between Postgres and
> MySql. A lot of stuff showed up on Google, but most of them are old.
> I saw this wiki over here
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_o
Hi,
I'm trying to find some write-ups about the differences between Postgres and
MySql. A lot of stuff showed up on Google, but most of them are old.
I saw this wiki over here
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_of_MySQL_2009 and plan
to watch a recent webcast on PostgreSQL
35 matches
Mail list logo
