> The results were that PgSQL was slower than MySQL only by a
> factor of 2 or 3
> (say, 3 seconds for MySQL against 6 or 8 seconds for PgSQL).
> Pretty good in
> my opinion.
I forgot to stress that the test was run using *MySQL* benchmark tools,
connecting against MySQL and PostgreSQL. I had to
MTcW:
Pick the database which allows your programmers
to get the job done. If the system is too slow, find out
if there are ways you could speed it up, and then if that
doesn't make you happy, get a faster server.
In my opinion it's not worth making the programmer's life
more difficult to go w
As a former Oracle developer, I decided to start working with cheaper
DBMS's. After a quick look on the market, PostgreSQL was the only one really
worth looking into.
But people liked MySQL, and I had to look for benchmarks. I found only one
(attached).
Not satisfied, I got PostgreSQL and MySQL
> Comparing PostgreSQL to MySQL is like comparing an 18-wheel Kenworth to
> a Porsche. The two are not equivalent
That's it. Major differences in features makes any benchmarking `apples to
oranges.'
> ... if you want a simple, very
> very fast READ-ONLY database, use MySQL.
BTW, can it be
Frankyl, Clayton:
Comparing PostgreSQL to MySQL is like comparing an 18-wheel Kenworth
to a Porsche. The two are not equivalent ... if you want a simple, very
very fast READ-ONLY database, use MySQL. If you want a full-featured
transaction-environment database for a huge, complex set of
> im just looking for independent benchmarks
Even if there exist independent benchmarks, there are none being
applicable to real life.
> i personally love postgres
> at work they like mysql
>
> currently we are investigating other possible db solutions
Uh? You _love_ this and they
hi all,
lately at work there has been a debate over
mysql versus postgres
im just looking for independent benchmarks
i personally love postgres
at work they like mysql
currently we are investigating other possible db solutions
and they are looking at oracle, i think we could save a lot of d
