On Friday 21 January 2005 21:28, Paul wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 15:39 -0600, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
> > I'm beginning to wonder whether PostgresSQL wouldn't be the better
> > solution...
>
> I've thought it is ... the only reason to prefer MySQL in the past has
> been better read performance. By every other metric I've felt that
> PostgresSQL is a "better" database and have wondered why everybody was
> using MySQL for everything. The only reason I can think of is the
> "network effect" which is one of the reasons Windows is popular
> (everybody knows somebody that knows it).
Actually, you guys should be a little nicer to mysql... :-) I have one app
where it outperformes everything else I tested - db2, oracle, postgres and
sybase - by at least 1 to 10... Reason? The mysql binary pretty much fit into
the cache of the cpu... plus the app was read heavy, a area that mysql shines
in.
Anyway, I would be careful with statements like "x is better than y because it
supports feature z" - that's not a "better" its a "more fitting for...". Yes,
Mysql doesn't support some/many features that other database engines have -
but there is a large set of appliations where you'll be hard pressed to find
something that beats mysql. Its simply an issue of selecting the tool that
fits best into your environment.
Peter.
