On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Rob Wultsch <wultsch@xxxxxxxxx> 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. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
