There was a question about business perspective of MySQL vs. PostgreSQL...
As far as I can tell , MySQL is not free for commercial distribution. It's
only free if you use it yourself or as part of some Open Source
distribution.
Correct me if I'm wrong (am I reading MySQL license wrong?)
-Alex
On Sunday 25 February 2007 16:09, Alex Dover wrote:
There was a question about business perspective of MySQL vs. PostgreSQL...
As far as I can tell , MySQL is not free for commercial distribution. It's
only free if you use it yourself or as part of some Open Source
distribution.
Correct me if
Quoting Tzahi Fadida, from the post of Sun, 25 Feb:
On Sunday 25 February 2007 16:09, Alex Dover wrote:
There was a question about business perspective of MySQL vs. PostgreSQL...
As far as I can tell , MySQL is not free for commercial distribution. It's
only free if you use it yourself or
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Ira Abramov wrote:
Quoting Tzahi Fadida, from the post of Sun, 25 Feb:
On Sunday 25 February 2007 16:09, Alex Dover wrote:
There was a question about business perspective of MySQL vs. PostgreSQL...
As far as I can tell , MySQL is not free for commercial distribution.
On Sunday, 25 בFebruary 2007 16:39, Tzahi Fadida wrote:
On Sunday 25 February 2007 16:09, Alex Dover wrote:
As far as I can tell , MySQL is not free for commercial distribution.
Correct me if I'm wrong (am I reading MySQL license wrong?)
And, PostgreSQL is free in that regard since it has a
Quoting guy keren, from the post of Sun, 25 Feb:
Didn't MySQL used to be plublished under dual licenses? either GPL or
embedded?
it still is. however, the other license is commercial - i.e. you need to
pay $$$ for that.
Choo, You've been in this business a long time, I expect more of
Yes and no.
It will be as slow as any common harddrive for write operations, but it
will be extremely fast for read operations. Now, what is your expected
usage profile?
Ez.
Amos Shapira wrote:
On 21/02/07, *Ira Abramov* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting
Regarding a multi-master clustering solution that someone asked for. Such a
product was advertised in the pgsql-announce mailing list. Since the product
does not seem to be free i will not advertise it here but rather redirect the
readers to the mailing list archives which can be accessed at
On 23/02/07, Ez-Aton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes and no.
It will be as slow as any common harddrive for write operations, but it
will be extremely fast for read operations. Now, what is your expected usage
profile?
It's in the context of the thread - this RAM disk was suggested in order
Quoting Amos Shapira, from the post of Thu, 22 Feb:
Yes but these were all practically identical disks - Guy's response was
about my idea to mirror a RAM disk with a regular magnetic media disk, which
would mean that that this volume will be as slow as the magnetic media, so
loosing the
Quoting guy keren, from the post of Wed, 21 Feb:
what? what a mirror is as _slow_ as the _slower_ disk. an I/O
request to the mirror, gets a response only after its clones were
written into both legs of the mirror - not as soon as one was written.
I once did some benchmarks for a
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 01:53, Amos Shapira wrote:
On 19/02/07, Tzahi Fadida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 19 February 2007 05:26, Amos Shapira wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible to configure PostgresQL to use raw disk partition, like
Oracle does?
If not - is there any
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 01:48, Amos Shapira wrote:
I'm still digging postgresql.org and last time I went to a (large) book
shop I saw an entire section (about 6-7 shelves) about MySQL but not a
single book about PostgresQL.
Did you also compare this to Oracle books? The problem is that
On 2/19/07, Tzahi Fadida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 19 February 2007 11:58, Israel Shikler wrote:
Hi ,
I see your post here concerning PostgresQL.
We are using RedHat Mysql.
Is there any advantages using PostgresQL over Mysql?
There are advantages both ways.
You will need
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 14:37, Maxim Veksler wrote:
What about redundancy. I need an active-active cluster for databases
to get the 5*'9's up time euphoria. Is there an open source database
that can do that? Planing to? Tried to?
PostgreSQL can do that and i am betting MySQL can too.
On 20/02/07, Ira Abramov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Amos Shapira, from the post of Tue, 20 Feb:
that was only a temporary solution for RAC untill OCFS came along and
temporary? Back in '99 Oracle wouldn't have had it any other way. When
we
yes, temporary the way that punched cards
On 20/02/07, Tzahi Fadida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you also compare this to Oracle books? The problem is that PostgreSQL
is
an overkill for the average joe developer. MySQL is simpler, faster, for
the
Why is PostgresQL an overkill? It looks just as easy to setup as mysql -
apt-get
On 20/02/07, Tzahi Fadida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In PostgreSQL they don't even do the caching (more or less), they let the
OS
to do it. This is a common question and the claim of the PostgreSQL dev
community is that the added benefit of a raw fs will be negligable. I for
one
believe it
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 01:43, Amos Shapira wrote:
On 20/02/07, Tzahi Fadida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In PostgreSQL they don't even do the caching (more or less), they let the
OS
to do it. This is a common question and the claim of the PostgreSQL dev
community is that the added
On 21/02/07, Tzahi Fadida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Depends. Sometimes queries takes longer. However it is not the point.
The reason for backupping once in a while is for PITR - point in time
recovery
which is a new facility in PostgreSQL 8+. I am not an expert on this
subject
but IIRC, imagine
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 01:39, Amos Shapira wrote:
On 20/02/07, Ira Abramov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Amos Shapira, from the post of Tue, 20 Feb:
that was only a temporary solution for RAC untill OCFS came along and
temporary? Back in '99 Oracle wouldn't have had it any
On 21/02/07, Tzahi Fadida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 01:39, Amos Shapira wrote:
So far my searches came to a conclusion that PostgresQL doesn't support
shared disk, at least not out of the box.
What do you mean by shared disk?
I meant sharing the same disk and
On 20/02/07, Tzahi Fadida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 14:37, Maxim Veksler wrote:
What about redundancy. I need an active-active cluster for databases
to get the 5*'9's up time euphoria. Is there an open source database
that can do that? Planing to? Tried to?
Amos Shapira wrote:
On 21/02/07, *Tzahi Fadida* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Depends. Sometimes queries takes longer. However it is not the point.
The reason for backupping once in a while is for PITR - point in
time recovery
which is a new facility in
Tzahi Fadida wrote:
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 14:37, Maxim Veksler wrote:
What about redundancy. I need an active-active cluster for databases
to get the 5*'9's up time euphoria. Is there an open source database
that can do that? Planing to? Tried to?
PostgreSQL can do that and i am betting
On 21/02/07, guy keren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what? what a mirror is as _slow_ as the _slower_ disk. an I/O
request to the mirror, gets a response only after its clones were
written into both legs of the mirror - not as soon as one was written.
Yes I see it now (after some more digging
Quoting Amos Shapira, from the post of Mon, 19 Feb:
Hello,
Is it possible to configure PostgresQL to use raw disk partition, like
Oracle does?
that was only a temporary solution for RAC untill OCFS came along and
now it has become the recommended way of doing things. I see no point in
On Monday 19 February 2007 05:26, Amos Shapira wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible to configure PostgresQL to use raw disk partition, like
Oracle does?
If not - is there any recommendation for favourite filesystem type to use?
Most certainly not.
PostgreSQL relies on the OS and FileSystems it
, 2007 11:44 AM
To: Amos Shapira
Cc: Linux-IL
Subject: Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about
Access conversion)
On Monday 19 February 2007 05:26, Amos Shapira wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible to configure PostgresQL to use raw disk partition, like
Oracle does
,
Israel Shikler
Softkol Ltd
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tzahi Fadida
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 11:44 AM
To: Amos Shapira
Cc: Linux-IL
Subject: Re: PostgresQL database on raw partition (and something about
Access conversion
On 19/02/07, Ira Abramov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Amos Shapira, from the post of Mon, 19 Feb:
Hello,
Is it possible to configure PostgresQL to use raw disk partition, like
Oracle does?
that was only a temporary solution for RAC untill OCFS came along and
now it has become the
On 19/02/07, Tzahi Fadida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 19 February 2007 05:26, Amos Shapira wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible to configure PostgresQL to use raw disk partition, like
Oracle does?
If not - is there any recommendation for favourite filesystem type to
use?
Most certainly
Quoting Amos Shapira, from the post of Tue, 20 Feb:
that was only a temporary solution for RAC untill OCFS came along and
temporary? Back in '99 Oracle wouldn't have had it any other way. When we
yes, temporary the way that punched cards were the best thing till
magnetic media and interactive
33 matches
Mail list logo
