On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Thom Brown <thom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 13 October 2010 12:35, Dave Page <dpage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Ron Mayer >> <rm_pg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Pavel Stehule wrote: >>>> 2010/10/8 Carlos Mennens <carlos.mennens@xxxxxxxxx>: >>>>> I know that MySQL uses MyISAM storage engine by default... what >>>>> storage engine does PostgreSQL use by default ... >>>> >>>> PostgreSQL supports and uses just only one storage engine - PostgreSQL. >>> >>> That said, ISTM one of Postgres's bigger strengths commercially seems >>> to be that vendors can reasonably easily plug in different storage engines. >> >> That depends on how you define "reasonably easily". It's not even >> remotely close to the ease with which you can plugin a different >> storage engine in MySQL, and would take a significant amount of >> engineering expertise and effort. > > And I don't think other storage engines bring anything but unnecessary > code maintenance overhead and complexity. Plus, reading MySQL's > documentation, you can see notes scattered everywhere about how > features behave differently, or aren't compatible with certain storage > engines. This not only increases the number of gotchas, but also > means supporting all these engines requires an extra level of > knowledge. > > I think focus on a single storage engine means it's extremely mature, > predictable and stable... IMHO. And allows extremely tight integration with the rest of the system - something I've heard the MySQL engine vendors all complain about (the rigidity of being behind a defined API that doesn't meet everyones needs). -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
