For my money, or the lack thereof :), I would much rather use PostgreSQL or SAP DB than MySQL for both feature AND, believe it or not, performance reasons. One of the developers on the SourceForge project did a very nice comparison of how SF would run on both MySQL and PostgreSQL and he was very surprised at the results. You can read about it at: http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20000705.php3. Of course, he was using PHP instead of Struts :)
For my own personal work I chose PostgreSQL for several features that MySQL - nested queries, views, triggers and stored procedures being the biggies. Transactions weren't available with MySQL at the time I made my decision but, even with their current level of support for transactions, I cannot conceive of doing without the other features, views and stored procedures especially. And that is why I don't understand Sun's push for MySQL. Are there any enterprise level projects (heck, even department level projects) that you don't want to use views and stored procedures with? rjsjr > -----Original Message----- > From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 3:31 PM > To: Struts Users Mailing List > Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Struts and Large ResultSet > > > And just above that he said: > > "If you want to use Oracle, by all means, please do. I think the issue > Oracle faces is they're trying desperately to embrace Linux, and > Oracle's "unbreakable Linux" (pitch) certainly makes a statement. My > retort would be unbreakable MySQL." > > Personally, I think it's kind of insane to tout MySQL as anything near > "unbreakable". Unless they're ready to push some heavy funding into > MySQL to improve it's ACID-ity, comparing MySQL to Oracle is like > comparing apples and oranges. Last I heard, MySQL was implementing > atomicity -- without rollback -- LOL what *is* that? I'd much rather > see them push PostgreSQL or SapDB. The argument (for MySQL still not > being ACID compliant) is that they are still trying to figure out how to > integrate those prinicpals without losing speed. Maybe Sun could help > them along; I don't know. I know this: you gain somewhere -- you lose > somewhere. ... "unbreakable MySQL" -- not unless it changes > substantially. > > Good thread - thanks James. I hope my views don't offend anyone. I'm > not really trying to diss MySQL -- it certainly has it's applications -- > I just think touting it as a solution comparable with Oracle is ... I'm > not going to say :-) out of fear of offend people I respect on this > list. I don't think it should be done though. There are people that > will look to Sun and embrace whatever they see them embrace -- and just > as whole-heartedly as Sun "seems" to. I think embracing MySQL so > strongly would be to their detriment ... > > Regards, > > Eddie > > (How precious is your data to you? No, *really*?!) > > James Mitchell wrote: > > >Sorry for getting in late on this one. > > > >"I was just at Google, and Google's an all-MySQL shop. Why did > they do it? > >Because they looked at DB2 and it was expensive and it didn't offer any > >added value." - Jonathan Schwartz > > > > Here's the full story: > > http://news.com.com/2008-1082-947510.html > > > > > > > >James Mitchell > >Software Engineer\Struts Evangelist > >Struts-Atlanta, the "Open Minded Developer Network" > >http://www.open-tools.org/struts-atlanta > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
