Thanks. Between posting and your response I found out that MySQL
has built in support for full-text searchs but PostgreSQL does not.
But Django seems
as happy with the one as the other.
-- Peter
On Feb 7, 2:06 pm, Tim Chase <django.us...@tim.thechases.com> wrote:
> > Is there any clear reason for preferring one of these DBMS over the
> > other for use with Django (1.0 onwards).
>
> Historically, PostgreSQL has favored correctness, ANSI standards,
> and data-integrity while MySQL has favored speed and
> pluggability. For the most part, they've reached equilibrium.
>
> The GUI/web admin tools are also a bit more polished and diverse
> compared to the PostgreSQL tools. I just use the command-line
> client for most administration, so it's not a big deal to me.
>
> As of some very old stats I've seen (and thus likely invalid),
> MySQL handled higher initial loads, but wasn't able to sustain
> them as gracefully; while PostgreSQL kept up with traffic, even
> if initial request response-times were a wee bit slower than
> MySQL. (MySQL had better performance until it reached a
> threshold and then started falling off; while PostgreSQL's didn't
> experience the same falling-off under high load). Take this with
> a grain of salt as I mention, since the study was c. 2003 or
> something. A lot happens in 5 years. :)
>
> There are a couple distinguishing features offered by one that
> you won't find in the other such as:
>
> MySQL is more popularly installed on cheaper shared-hosting
> plans, so you'll find it more in the wild. It's also possible to
> use various table-types ("storage engines" in MySQL-speak[1])
> which may not offer transaction safety, but offer other benefits:
> memory-only tables, "Merged" tables which can be split across
> drives, MyISAM tables which are faster but don't offer
> transactions, and "archive" tables which are good for
> infrequently accessed ("archived", duh :) data.
>
> PostgreSQL has built-in GIS data-types and functions, which I
> believe are required for the GeoDjango functionality (or Oracle).
> PG also allows flexible creation of new data-types and
> functions/operators as shown by the GIS data-types that were
> integrated early. It also offers some under-the-covers stunts
> with table-inheritance. It's very close to Oracle syntax (from
> what I understand, having never used Oracle), so Oracle admins
> may feel more at home in PG.
>
> I personally find MySQL easier to administer, but MySQL has a
> reputation as being built for developers, while PosgreSQL has a
> reputation as being built for DBAs. I'm a developer first.
>
> So I can't really recommend one vs. the other unless I knew your
> needs. Do you need GeoDjango, custom data-types,
> table-inheritance or "enterprise"y features for your DBA, then
> PostgreSQL may be a better choice. Do you need flexibility in
> storage-engine choice, ready availability on shared/inexpensive
> web hosts, or spiffy GUI/web admin interfaces, then use MySQL.
>
> My last bit of advice: if you don't care strongly about any of
> these features, DEVELOP FOR BOTH -- they're both free to download
> and install, so there's little reason not to. Django
> (particularly the work on the ORM -- special thanks to Malcolm
> here) makes this very easy. You can then test against both and
> see which performs better. And if it's an app you plan to share,
> it will let others choose a backing DB for their own reasons
> rather than reasons foisted by you.
>
> -tim
>
> [1]http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/storage-engines.html
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django users" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
