Re: Re: MySql or postgre?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 10:03:35PM -0400, Bob Hall wrote: [ ... ] > harder to learn. Earlier versions had a reputation for corrupting > tables every few months under steady use. Whether this problem > continues in the current version, I haven't heard. ya, this can be annoying. we saw it with 6.5.x, and after much farting around, discovered that if we made *absolutely sure* that no INSERTs or UPDATEs would cause a row to be greater than 8192 bytes in size, the corruption disappeared. yes, it'd be nice to not have to check, but at least we can have a stable db. in theory the pgsql backend should be checking this. i guess someone forgot :-) i am informed that 7.0.x has fixed this bug, and we're in the migration process from 6.5.x now. 7.1.x is looking extremely good - no more 8k row limit. if anyone has seen corruption in more recent pgsql, i'd certainly like to hear about it. > The question is not whether one is better or not, but what you want > to do. If you want a draught animal that can haul anything, go with > PostgreSQL. If you want a race horse that goes fast around specific > types of tracks, pick MySQL. one question is (at least in the web world, which is what this list is about): how many sites *don't* really need stuff like transaction support? sure, you can play games and do tricky stuff but in the end, its a lot nicer to just be able to go 'begin; ...; ...; end; commit;' mysql will certainly be interesting once the transaction support is tagged "stable". [ ... ] > difference will become much smaller. Second parties are adding > transactions and row level locking to the basic MySQL package, this worries me a bit. i don't mean to deride the developers of mysql or the transaction code, but it seems to me that transactions are fairly integral to a rdbms, and not the sort of thing you can just "add on"? like a car. you can't start with just seats and wheels, you need a chassis first. > For PostgreSQL, the development team is ironing out the remaining > kinks and turning it into real competition for the commercial DBMSs. while it may lack some of the features of the commercial DBMSs, i think it already is very real competition. i'd certainly choose pg over oracle any day of the week. i find it far more user- and admin-friendly, and i'm sure i'm not alone. [ ... ] j. -- .----------+------------------------------------. |John Slee `-----------. <john@chirp.com.au>| |Chirp Web Design | http://www.chirp.com.au| |Phone: +61 2 62301871 `----. +61 2 62301515 Fax| `---------------------------+-------------------'