* Kiarash Em. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [11 Dec 2001 06:29]: > mySQL vs postgreSQL?!?!
> check this out > http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20000705.php3?page=1 > ;) Hmm. Seems rather out of date wrt postgres. 8kb rows? Is that of data? Because postgres quite happily has field types that allow arbitrary blobs of text or data. I'd probably say that anyone who hits data limits like that has some issues with the design of their database itself rather than the DBMS. The article is also somewhat self-contradictory: "Postgres is making headway in the performance and stability departments." "MySQL loses points in the long-term stability department." "Postgres will run smoothly for extended periods of time without trouble." When it comes to transactions: "Finally, for the hardest-core developers, Postgres could be pretty slick. Foreign keys, views, subselects, and transactions can all be pretty cool -- if you need them and you will make any use of them. If you don't need them or won't use them, then you're probably better off with MySQL and its superior performance." But on the PG page it raves about transactions. For some reason the author doesn't recommend you investigate transactions. Then again, I ran MySQL for a year, Oracle for a year and have been running PostgreSQL for half a year so far. MySQL was irritating due to its lack of subqueries and transactions (a somewhat half-baked table type is now available that supports transactions, rather than it being part of the core of the DBMS, plus, is it actually release quality yet?). Plus it would frequently decide to not handle a query for no apparent reason. Oracle was too large and complex for my purposes. I wasn't willing to spend the amount of time and effort needed to properly configure and administer it. Go for Oracle if you have a dedicated DBA and need its features. It's a good program, just worthy of the Sledgehammer award. PostgreSQL offers appropriate speed, transactions and fkeys. The majority of my websites use multiple tables in their database design. Assorted pages update data as necessary and this data needs to be reflected in multiple tables. Thus, transactions are superb. I can do the operations and if any of them fail, I can just rollback, rather than trying to do them all backwards. PostgreSQL and its transactions are stable and well worth the effort of initially learning. All part of the Laziness that Larry talks about. You can either do it all manually, and thus not necessarily properly, or you can spend initial effort learning about transactions and have it pay off in the amount of time you recoup later. cheers, -- iain. <http://eh.org/~koschei/> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
