Re: Re: MySQL has transactions

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?