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