On 25 June 2010 09:44, Dave Page <dpage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > 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 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
