To many people, PostgreSQL and MySQL seem like similar, alternative databases. Both are quickly gaining popularity. Based on the track records of older versions, there's a lot of debate over the speed of PostgreSQL and the durability of MySQL. But times have changed and each database has progressed. On both counts, the two packages are the closest they've ever been, so when deciding which to use in a Web application, a developer doesn't always have a clear winner. [...] If you're looking for a database to prop up a Weblog or portal, you'll find that many such packages rely on MySQL. It should be possible to port them to PostgreSQL, but if you're looking for a turnkey package, chances are you're not interested in doing too much porting work. If you're migrating from Oracle, Sybase, or Microsoft SQL Server, I suggest PostgreSQL. Like those da tabases, PostgreSQL has triggers, stored procedures, and a rich set of built-in functions (including many functions for date manipulation). Also, PostgreSQL procedural language is easy to learn if you're familiar with Oracle's PL/SQL and SQL Server's Transact-SQL
From a strict database perspective, PostgreSQL has a bit more power than
MySQL. In particular, support for transactions (and database integrity) is
very complete with PostgreSQL. With that being the case, the disadvantage
would be with MySQL, not PostgreSQL.
In addition, Tim Purdue (sourceforge.net) has done some excellent work to
compare MySQL and PostgreSQL. His investigation concluded that PostgreSQL
was not only stronger in terms of database features, but was also able to
completely outperform MySQL, particularly on complex queries. In
particular, the main reason for this was due to MySQL's table-level locking
as compared to PostgreSQL's 'better than row level' locking.
Gerald Timothy Quimpo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 27 January 2003 02:53 pm, Jopoy C. Solano wrote:
> Thanks! It confirms my first choice :)
i use postgres with php. we've used mysql too, but that was
for old projects. we went with postgres because at the time
mysql didn't have sub-selects or transactions. i have not
been keeping track of mysql development though. i know
that transactions were available some time ago if you used
innodb, i think. and i think they were working on sub-selects
and that might be working by now. [warning, as i said above,
i have not actually been paying much attention to mysql,
so my impressions of progress above may be wrong, they're
based on reading about, not actually using, those features].
of course, while mysql was playing catch-up, we got
used to postgres, liked it, and we've not needed to test
mysql.
i'd say, both are good enough as da tabase engines, and you
might need to decide which one to use based on some other
metric (flip a coin, which syntax you like, popularity with
hosting services [including the version and features you need,
because some hosting services might still be using old versions],
front end software available (e.g., pgaccess), platforms
supported (they're probably pretty equal), other weird options,
e.g., if one allows you to completely turn off transactions
and you need speed more than you need transaction safety,
then that might be a decision point for you).
tiger
--
Gerald Timothy Quimpo tiger*quimpo*org gquimpo*sni-inc.com tiger*sni*ph
Public Key: "gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 672F4C78"
my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
