On 25 June 2010 09:44, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Rob Wultsch <wultsch@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MySQL has several full text search solutions. The built in MyISAM
>> solution is the best known, but there is also an engine for using
>> sphinx.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> And there are features that MySQL has that PG does not. Index only
>> queries is a massive feature. Pluggable backend storage engines are
>> another.
>
> Some might argue that is not a feature. Sure, it means you can have
> different types of storage, but it means the feature set gets
> fragmented - for example, if you want text search, you use MyISAM, but
> if you want relational integrity you have to use InnoDB or some other
> backend. You want both? Oh. Hmmm.
>
> It could also be argued that having a storage engine API means that
> the query planner/optimiser cannot have nearly as much knowledge about
> how the data is stored and what access characteristics it may have
> thus preventing it from being as well optimised as Postgres.
>
Didn't PostgreSQL used to have more than 1 storage engine in the past?
I thought I read somewhere it did, but it was decided it was a
compromise on stability and/or quality, so ended up using a single
kick-ass engine?
Thom