On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:26 PM, John Cheng <chonger.ch...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Comparison between MySQL using the MyISAM engine with PostgreSQL is > really > > not sensible. For one, the MyISAM engine does not have transaction and > > foreign key support, while PostgreSQL supports transaction and foreign > key. > > Would anyone really give up transaction and integrity for slightly more > > performance? > > Sure, if the application fit. If I have to load 100Meg files into a > db, run some simple extraction on them, and output it back out, and > can recreate all my data at the drop of a hat, then mysql / myisam > might be a good match. Right . There will be situations where MySQL with MyISAM will be a good fit. My point was more that it doesn't make sense to simply compare "speed" becuase other things needs to be taken into account. > > I am no a fan of MySQL, more because the company behind it seems to be > lost and drifting than the db itself. Bugs that are 5 years old > finally getting fixed after Monty chided them in december? Come on, > PostgreSQL comes out with a near bug free new version every 1 to 2 > years. PostgreSQL stomps bugs in hours or days that MySQL AB takes > YEARS to fix, and then get reintroduced (see the order by on innodb > indexed field debacle for that story) and I just don't trust the > company or the db for anything complex. But as a tool it has some > uses that it's good enough at I could use it if I had to. > -- - John L Cheng
