[GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-06-30 Thread howachen
Hi, I am new to pgsqlI really appreciate the licensing terms of pgsql...mysql licensing is a little bit risky to use... But, I have one question... Q. when using pgsql as a very heavy and mission critical applications, what are the advantages of using pgsql instead of mysql? thanks. ---

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-06-30 Thread Merlin Moncure
On 30 Jun 2006 08:58:27 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am new to pgsqlI really appreciate the licensing terms of pgsql...mysql licensing is a little bit risky to use... Q. when using pgsql as a very heavy and mission critical applications, what are the advantages of us

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-06-30 Thread Matthew Schumacher
Merlin Moncure wrote: > > * mysql performance advantage is greatly overstated, although > postgresql requires you to use certain conventions (example: prepared > statements) to get comparable performance > * both databases (IMO) are very stable. in 6 years of workikng with > both databases, I've n

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-06-30 Thread Merlin Moncure
Mysql does not allow you to use now() as the default value of a column. From their docs: "The DEFAULT clause specifies a default value for a column. With one exception, the default value must be a constant; it cannot be a function or an expression. This means, for example, that you cannot set th

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-06-30 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:07:32PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote: > * mysql has decent out of the box replication that is easy to set up > (one day I hope pg get hot PITR which is analagous feature) Actually, PITR is in no way analagous. Try replicating something like 'INSERT INTO table SELECT rando

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-01 Thread howachen
"Merlin Moncure" 寫道: > On 30 Jun 2006 08:58:27 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am new to pgsqlI really appreciate the licensing terms of > > pgsql...mysql licensing is a little bit risky to use... > > > > Q. when using pgsql as a very heavy and mission critical appli

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-01 Thread Merlin Moncure
On 6/30/06, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually, PITR is in no way analagous. Try replicating something like 'INSERT INTO table SELECT random();' on MySQL and note how all the data is different. pgpool replication is equivalent to MySQL's replication. Or if you want more sophisticat

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-01 Thread Christopher Browne
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Merlin Moncure") transmitted: > hm. that's all very true (and important), but I try and keep focus > on the things besides basic correctness that drive the development > cultural divide that seperates the two communities. p

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-05 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 22:27, Christopher Browne wrote: > In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ("Merlin Moncure") transmitted: > > hm. that's all very true (and important), but I try and keep focus > > on the things besides basic correctness that drive the devel

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-11 Thread Jan Wieck
On 6/30/2006 1:07 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: * mysql has a few features here and there which are nice...just to name a few, flush tables with lock, multiple insert, etc I have no clue what flushing tables with lock might be good for. Are applications in MySQuirreL land usually smarter than the

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-11 Thread Merlin Moncure
On 7/11/06, Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/30/2006 1:07 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: I have no clue what flushing tables with lock might be good for. Are applications in MySQuirreL land usually smarter than the DB engine with respect to when to checkpoint or not? no, but the ability to

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-11 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 11:04, Jan Wieck wrote: > On 6/30/2006 1:07 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > > > * mysql has a few features here and there which are nice...just to > > name a few, flush tables with lock, multiple insert, etc > The multiple insert stuff is not only non-standard, it also encourage

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-11 Thread Jan Wieck
On 7/11/2006 1:08 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 11:04, Jan Wieck wrote: On 6/30/2006 1:07 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > * mysql has a few features here and there which are nice...just to > name a few, flush tables with lock, multiple insert, etc The multiple insert stuff is no

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-11 Thread Guido Neitzer
On 11.07.2006, at 19:36 Uhr, Merlin Moncure wrote: As to preparing statements, I agree in principle although I don't know if that is a good argument not to make the non-paramaterized interface more powerful. It is not, as prepared statements have the problem that they are only optimized once

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-11 Thread Jan Wieck
On 7/11/2006 1:36 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: that said, i tried to put fairness in my comparison, many pg/mysql comparisons ulimately resort to a dismissive mysql diss which does not play well to the uninformed third party. so, I made an attempt at something with some substance. Totally unders

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-11 Thread Joshua D. Drake
> The multiple insert stuff is not only non-standard, it also encourages > the bad practice of using literal values directly in the SQL string > versus prepared statements with place holders. It is bad practice > because it introduces SQL injection risks since the responsibility of > literal value

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-11 Thread Merlin Moncure
On 7/11/06, Guido Neitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 11.07.2006, at 19:36 Uhr, Merlin Moncure wrote: > As to preparing > statements, I agree in principle although I don't know if that is a > good argument not to make the non-paramaterized interface more > powerful. It is not, as prepared sta

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Guido Neitzer wrote: > On 11.07.2006, at 19:36 Uhr, Merlin Moncure wrote: > > >As to preparing > >statements, I agree in principle although I don't know if that is a > >good argument not to make the non-paramaterized interface more > >powerful. > > It is not, as prepared statements have the probl

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-11 Thread Tom Lane
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 7/11/2006 1:08 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> I thought it was in the SQL 99 standard... > The SQL bible doesn't say SQL99, it says it is a DB2 specific feature. If you're speaking of INSERT INTO foo VALUES (a, row), (another, row), ... that's in SQL92.

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-11 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Jan Wieck wrote: > On 7/11/2006 1:08 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > >> On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 11:04, Jan Wieck wrote: >>> On 6/30/2006 1:07 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >>> >>> > * mysql has a few features here and there which are nice...just to >>> > name a few, flush tables with lock, multiple insert, e

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-11 Thread Ron Johnson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> The multiple insert stuff is not only non-standard, it also encourages >> the bad practice of using literal values directly in the SQL string >> versus prepared statements with place holders. It is bad practice >> because it i

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-11 Thread Guido Neitzer
On 11.07.2006, at 21:11 Uhr, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I had the problem a few months ago, where my app server plugin and the jdbc driver used prepared statements for selecting stuff from the database. Most of the time, indexes weren't used at all, so PostgreSQL performance was the worst I've ever s

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-12 Thread Rafal Pietrak
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 15:24 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > It is also something that users are clammoring for (and my customers). To > > the point that I have customers using unions to emulate the behavior. Why? > > Because it is really, really fast. > > When inserting mult

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-12 Thread Csaba Nagy
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 21:11, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Maybe we could check the MCVs, and store those for which the plan would > be A (say indexscan) and those for which it would be B (say bitmap > indexscan), etc; so we'd save more than one plan and choose at execution > time depending on the actual

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-12 Thread Merlin Moncure
On 7/11/06, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Guido Neitzer wrote: > On 11.07.2006, at 19:36 Uhr, Merlin Moncure wrote: > It is not, as prepared statements have the problem that they are only > optimized once and very generically and without actual knowledge of > the parameter content, th

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-12 Thread Sean Davis
On 7/12/06 3:32 AM, "Rafal Pietrak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 15:24 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >> Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> It is also something that users are clammoring for (and my customers). To >>> the point that I have customers using unions to emulate the behavior

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql

2006-07-12 Thread Roman Neuhauser
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2006-07-11 12:04:07 -0400: > On 6/30/2006 1:07 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > > >* mysql has a few features here and there which are nice...just to > >name a few, flush tables with lock, multiple insert, etc (...) > The multiple insert stuff is not only non-standard, it al

Re: [GENERAL] pgsql vs mysql - escaping data for COPY?

2006-07-03 Thread Alban Hertroys
Merlin Moncure wrote: * mysql has a few features here and there which are nice...just to name a few, flush tables with lock, multiple insert, etc PostgreSQL does have multiple inserts, but complying to the SQL92 standard, through INSERT (...) SELECT ... For example: INSERT INTO my_table (id,