On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:21:08AM -0600, Bob Apthorpe wrote: > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:16:46 +0600 Alexander Litvinov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On _______, 11 ____ 2004 19:05, Sidney Markowitz wrote: > > > Michael Parker wrote: > > > > Kelsey will have to correct me if I'm wrong, but he's not seeing the > > > > high I/O with the MySQL bayes storage, he's seeing it with the DB_File > > > > solution. > > > > > > Oh, I read back over his earlier email. I was confusing DB_File and DBI, > > > thinking we were talking about overhead imposed by using the DBI > > > abstraction layer to get to MySQL. Whoops... Yes, his I/O problems are > > > using DB_File and he hasn't retested with MySQL yet. > > > > Why do you want to use MySQL ? I would like to see PostgreSQL support or > > even > > databse independant way. > > Oracle... >
Please no my database is better than your database messages, lets put a stop to that sort of thing right now. The Bayes SQL storage code (and AWL code for that matter) was written in such a way that all modern RDBMS servers should be supported, specifically (in no particular order) MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, DB2. I'm sure Informix, Firebird, MS-SQL and others can be used as well. I really only have the ability/time to test on MySQL and PostgreSQL, so if you have one of the other databases please feel free to test and report success/failure via Bugzilla. Michael
