On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, David Griffiths wrote: > 1) the MySQL docs are better (sorry - I found them easier to read, and > more comprehensive; I had an easier time finding the answers I needed)
Huh. I had the opposite experience. Each to his own. I think everybody agrees PG needs a better tuning doc (or pointers to it, or something). > "Speed depends on the nature of use and the complexity of queries. If > you are doing updates of related tables, ACID is of vital importance and > MySQL doesn't provide it." I don't know if you looked at my presentation. But in preparation for it I checked out MySQL 4.0.x[most recent stable]. I found that I violates the C in acid in some places. ie you can insert a date of 0000/00/00 and have it sit there and be fine. Perhaps this is the fault of mysql's timestamp type. > MyISAM. Complex updates are also very very fast. We have not tried > flooding either database with dozens of complex statements from multiple > clients; You don't need complex statements to topple mysql over in high concurrency. I was doing fairly simple queries with 20 load generators - it didn't like it. Not at all (mysql: 650 seconds pg: 220) > 3) I see alot more corrupt-database bugs on the MySQL lists (most are > MyISAM, but a few InnoDB bugs pop up from time to time) - way more than > I see on the Postgres lists. I saw this as well. I was seeing things in the changelog as late as september (this year) about fixing bugs that cause horrific corruption. That doesn't make me feel comfy. Remember - in reality InnoDB is still very new. The PG stuff has been tinkered with for years. I like innovation and new things, but in some cases, I prefer the old code that has been looked at for years. -- Jeff Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.jefftrout.com/ http://www.stuarthamm.net/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
