This sort of discussion should really go onto -performance, but I'm
at pains to stomp out a common misperception.
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:45:38PM +0100, PFC wrote:
>
> Sure, postgres is (a bit but not much) slower for a simple
> query like SELECT * FROM one table WHERE id=some number, and
This is true _only if_ nobody else is writing at the same time you
are. That is, for single-user or read-only databases, MySQL appears
to have a really significant advantage when using the standard MyISAM
table type. The problem with that table type is that it requires the
_whole table_ be locked during write operations.
In any case, for any sort of real database work, nobody sane would
use anything except the InnoDB table type. That's a more reasonable
fruit-comparison than MySQL using MyISAM. In the latter case, you
may as well compare PostgreSQL to flat file writing.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are
against all taxes for raising money to pay it off.
--Alexander Hamilton
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
