Stick with MySQL for almost everything. I'm pretty sure that everyone on this list will back me up when I say that using Oracle is never necessary - free solutions have come so far that they offer everything Oracle does, in all practicality. Pgsql (Postgres) is only necessary when you need stuff like transactions and stored functions and... other stuff that I've never had much use for.
Okay, the pgsql lovers are going to flame me over that I bet, postgres *is* better for several reasons, but with a small db like you're talking about, you probably won't need the functions pgsql has that MySQL doesn't. Dan > Hello, > > I've recently re-joined the list after a brief hiatus. I'm starting a new > project that needs to integrate database and PHP to create a web > application. However, in the past the datasets were at most in thousands of > records, not in tens of thousands. This project will require handling at a > minimum 40,000 records in one table alone, with realistic growth potential > for up > to 100,000 records. There will be several other tables that won't be quite > so large, but will also be in tens of thousands. A typical makeup of the > table will be 1-2 integer fields, 6-10 varchar fields (varying in length > from 8 to 50 chars), and perhaps 1-2 text fields. In my past projects i've > used MySQL almost exclusively and it's worked fine. However, i'm not sure if > it can handle datasets this large. Has anyone had experience with using > MySQL with large datasets? How does it perform? My next question is if MySQL > is not robust > enought for it, would PostgreSQL be robust enough? I'm trying to avoid going > to Oracle, primarily for cost reasons. > > I'd appreciate your advice, > jaro ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
