Hear hear!! Simple data in a highly capable RDBMS is not a sin unless you wrote a big check for your highly capable RDBMS. PostgreSQL is actually not a resource or administration hog for small datbases as compared to the "Big Boys". In fact, one of the big gripes about it in the mailing lists is that the defaults for runtime configuration parameters assume you have a relatively humble machine. Large databases require tweeking of shared memory allocation, etc.
Ian >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/14/03 10:45AM >>> on 3/14/03 1:30 PM, Jeremy Cowgar at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Is their a mysql module that works with 4.0? The postgres one works great, but > for speed concerns and the simplistic data I am storing, I think mysql would > be a better choice. For those reasons, I'd stick with PostgreSQL, especially since you already have it working. PostgreSQL isn't much slower than MySQL for smaller datasets, and can be faster for larger ones. I. To remove yourself from this list: Send a message to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" with the following text in the BODY of your message: signoff aolserver II. For a complete list of listserv options please visit: http://listserv.aol.com/ III. For more AOLserver information please visit: http://www.aolserver.com/ I. To remove yourself from this list: Send a message to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" with the following text in the BODY of your message: signoff aolserver II. For a complete list of listserv options please visit: http://listserv.aol.com/ III. For more AOLserver information please visit: http://www.aolserver.com/
