On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> On 13 October 2010 12:35, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Ron Mayer
>> <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> wrote:
>>> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>>> 2010/10/8 Carlos Mennens <carlos.mennens@gmail.com>:
>>>>> I know that MySQL uses MyISAM storage engine by default... what
>>>>> storage engine does PostgreSQL use by default ...
>>>>
>>>> PostgreSQL supports and uses just only one storage engine - PostgreSQL.
>>>
>>> That said, ISTM one of Postgres's bigger strengths commercially seems
>>> to be that vendors can reasonably easily plug in different storage engines.
>>
>> That depends on how you define "reasonably easily". It's not even
>> remotely close to the ease with which you can plugin a different
>> storage engine in MySQL, and would take a significant amount of
>> engineering expertise and effort.
>
> And I don't think other storage engines bring anything but unnecessary
> code maintenance overhead and complexity. Plus, reading MySQL's
> documentation, you can see notes scattered everywhere about how
> features behave differently, or aren't compatible with certain storage
> engines. This not only increases the number of gotchas, but also
> means supporting all these engines requires an extra level of
> knowledge.
>
> I think focus on a single storage engine means it's extremely mature,
> predictable and stable... IMHO.
And allows extremely tight integration with the rest of the system -
something I've heard the MySQL engine vendors all complain about (the
rigidity of being behind a defined API that doesn't meet everyones
needs).
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company