I agree +1 Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry. -----Original Message----- From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> Sender: python-list-bounces+bradenf=hotmail....@python.org Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:30:38 To: <python-list@python.org> Subject: Re: Python 2.7 or 3.1
In message <mailman.393.1288390263.2218.python-l...@python.org>, Christian Heimes wrote: > Am 29.10.2010 23:16, schrieb Lawrence D'Oliveiro: > >> In message <mailman.289.1288150693.2218.python-l...@python.org>, Jorge >> Biquez wrote: >> >>> I was wondering if you can comment more about what alternatives to >>> use instead to MySql. My web solutions do not need "all the power" of >>> a true database, >> >> Is more than one process likely to access the data at the same time? If >> so, use MySQL. > > You have to store and acces a LOT of data? Hadoop may the solution. I don’t think the OP is quite at the level where they need to think in terms of something as heavy-hitting as that. I suggested MySQL because that’s the usual thing people start with for a multiuser situation, unless/until they decide they need something more. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
