"Brett W. McCoy" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2000, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
>
> > >What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in
> > >efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though.
> >
> > Actually it said efficacy - more like effectiveness. You can be efficient
> > but not effective and vice versa.
>
> Efficient but not effective... you mean like MySQL? :-P
This has "fire" written all over it....
But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise
level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster
simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex structures that
Pgsql can. Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited
in platform support compared to mysql.
Heck, on a global level, we're also managing Access, MSSQL, Oracle,
Access, and even Filemaker. They all have features that others can't
even come close to. That's why homogeneity in the data center, or
the desktop, is a bad thing. Use what works best, when it works best.
:-)
-Ronabop