John Cheng wrote: >> This is question for Juan, have you asked the MySQL mailing list?
I'm afraid MySQL general list isn't as dynamic as PostgreSQL general list. http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/216795 MySQL general list: 4 answers in about 48 hours PostgreSQL general list: 27 answers in about 72 hours Thanks again to everybody for the amount of knowledge you have shared in this thread. Juan Karlos 2009/3/17 John Cheng <chonger.ch...@gmail.com> > This is question for Juan, have you asked the MySQL mailing list? What do > they say about this? > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Erik Jones <ejo...@engineyard.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 17, 2009, at 4:47 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> >> The question is: Which DBMS do you think is the best for this kind of >>>> application? PostgreSQL or MySQL? >>>> >>> >>> As you can imagine, PostgreSQL. >>> >>> My main reasons are that in a proper transactional environment (ie >>> you're not using scary MyISAM tables) Pg is *much* better about handling >>> concurrent load, particularly concurrent activity by readers and writers. >>> >> >> Actually, following this comment it should be noted that if you were to >> choose MySQL you'd pretty much be making a decision to *not* be using >> transactions at all. The reason for this is that while InnoDB does support >> MySQL's geometry data types it does *not* support indexes on geometry >> columns, only MyISAM does which does not support transactions. Call me old >> fashioned if you like, but I like my data to have integrity ;) >> >> Erik Jones, Database Administrator >> Engine Yard >> Support, Scalability, Reliability >> 866.518.9273 x 260 >> Location: US/Pacific >> IRC: mage2k >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) >> To make changes to your subscription: >> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >> > > > > -- > - John L Cheng >
