On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Tod Harter wrote: > Its only a myth until you run benchmarks on real-world applications. As the > guy said, its not an end-all and be-all of databases by any means. On the > other hand its generally a LOT faster than serializing stuff to cache it, and > simple enough to run that it probably is a viable alternative in cases like > this. Even if you use pg or Oracle or whatever you could cache commonly used > data sets to a faster server. If you need sub-selects, cascading > deletes/foreign keys, or triggers, or stored procedures, then use something > else. PG is a fine database, but it can be a LOT slower, and it is definitely > harder to manage. MySQL servers can take a major pounding and stay up for > months at a time with zero maintenance. Sometimes simplicity is a virtue ;o).
[This is totally off topic, but it's my server so what the hell ;-)] That's the opposite of my experience, is all I can say. Under load MySQL becomes flaky as anything. It's thread management sucks, its query optimisation sucks, and when it goes down, it goes down hard. Pg on the other hand has been nothing but sweet to me. Stable, fast, reliable, and easy as pie to setup. And much easier to manage data in there because you can use views and triggers and referential integrity. Now I *know* MySQL is getting all these things. It's been slowly getting them for years now. But I'd rather use something that works today (which is why I'm not willing to wait for Microsoft to retro fit security and stability onto their platforms), and that for me is Pg. -- <!-- Matt --> <:->Get a smart net</:-> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
