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

> 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.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to