Re: Re: MySQL has transactions
От | Adam Lang |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: MySQL has transactions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 00cd01c08621$441455c0$330a0a0a@6014cwpza006 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | MySQL has transactions ("David Wall" <d.wall@computer.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: MySQL has transactions
|
Список | pgsql-general |
There have been several recent benchmarks by non-mysql and postgres people and the speed argument does not seem to be valid. Even though MySQL still beats postgres in speed if they are compared with one user on the DB, postgres seems to destroy MySQL in speed as you tend to add users. Adam Lang Systems Engineer Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company http://www.rutgersinsurance.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph N. Hall @5sigma.com>" <" <heard_it_on_the_internet> To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 12:19 AM Subject: [GENERAL] Re: MySQL has transactions > Postgresql's SQL implementation is way ahead of MySQL's relatively > stunted vocabulary. But on the other hand, MySQL implements most > of the popular functionality. The other thing is that MySQL is > blindingly fast and has a very uncomplicated API. > > If you need real SQL and can't afford Oracle/Sybase/DB2 then the > obvious choice is Postgresql. If you need speed and simplicity > and maximum ease of administration and maintenance, that would > be MySQL. > > -joseph > > David Wall wrote: > > > > Now that MySQL has transaction support through Berkeley DB lib, and it's > > always had way more data types, what are the main advantages postgresql has > > over it? I don't think mysql has subselects and such, but they did add a > > master-slave replication feature as well as online reorganization (perhaps > > locks tables like vacuum?). > > > > Anybody used both of the current releases who can comment?
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: