Re: (OT: PostgreSQL vs MySQL)

2006-04-08 Thread janus
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 05:53:46AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 05:16:56PM +0800, Lars Hansson wrote: > > > On Saturday 08 April 2006 01:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > If you made a field too short for some of the data which co

Re: (OT: PostgreSQL vs MySQL)

2006-04-08 Thread Tony
Josh Tolley wrote: > > On 4/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As to losing data, I suspect you'd lose a lot more > > from PostgreSQL than MySQL on a failing hard drive. > > Any particular reason for that suspicion? I ask out of genuine > interest, and I promise I don't want t

Re: (OT: PostgreSQL vs MySQL)

2006-04-08 Thread janus
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 05:16:56PM +0800, Lars Hansson wrote: > On Saturday 08 April 2006 01:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If you made a field too short for some of the data which comes along > > there are two different approaches as to how to handle the situation. > > First is to identify the p

Re: (OT: PostgreSQL vs MySQL)

2006-04-08 Thread Lars Hansson
On Saturday 08 April 2006 01:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If you made a field too short for some of the data which comes along > there are two different approaches as to how to handle the situation. > First is to identify the problem and roll back so that nothing even got > started. This is what

Re: (OT: PostgreSQL vs MySQL)

2006-04-07 Thread Josh Tolley
On 4/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As to losing data, I suspect you'd lose a lot more > from PostgreSQL than MySQL on a failing hard drive. Any particular reason for that suspicion? I ask out of genuine interest, and I promise I don't want to start a flame war. -Josh

Re: (OT: PostgreSQL vs MySQL)

2006-04-07 Thread Frank Bax
At 01:08 PM 4/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As to losing data, I suspect you'd lose a lot more from PostgreSQL than MySQL on a failing hard drive. And I suspect that if you place WAL files on different disk than the database, that the opposite is true.

Re: (OT: PostgreSQL vs MySQL)

2006-04-07 Thread Tony
Chris Kuethe wrote: > > On 06 Apr 2006 18:12:59 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz > wrote: > > Given the cost of programmer time (and the cost of lost data) vs the > > cost of a slightly faster processor, is it ever really worth it even > > if MySQL is *twice* as fast? > > Yes. > > Example 1: I feel l

Re: (OT: PostgreSQL vs MySQL)

2006-04-07 Thread Chris Kuethe
On 06 Apr 2006 18:12:59 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > Given the cost of programmer time (and the cost of lost data) vs the > cost of a slightly faster processor, is it ever really worth it even > if MySQL is *twice* as fast? Yes. Example 1: I feel like digging through some data that will be

Re: (OT: PostgreSQL vs MySQL)

2006-04-07 Thread Joachim Schipper
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:17:15AM +0100, Craig Skinner wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:25:38PM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote: > > I can second that. I am not a heavy database user by any means - I like > > grep far too much for that - but when it can't be avoided, I'd rather > > use something

Re: (OT: PostgreSQL vs MySQL)

2006-04-06 Thread Steve Shockley
Randal L. Schwartz wrote: I keep seeing this, but I sometimes see the opposite. That "MySQL is faster" meme seems peristent though, as if the PostgreSQL want to provide *some* justification for people to continue to have a reason for MySQL. MySQL is perhaps slightly faster by default; PostgreS

Re: (OT: PostgreSQL vs MySQL)

2006-04-06 Thread Darrin Chandler
Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Craig> MySQL is a wee bit faster, I keep seeing this, but I sometimes see the opposite. That "MySQL is faster" meme seems peristent though, as if the PostgreSQL want to provide *some* justification for people to continue to have a reason for MySQL. Given the cost of

Re: (OT: PostgreSQL vs MySQL)

2006-04-06 Thread Randal L. Schwartz
> "Craig" == Craig Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Craig> MySQL is a wee bit faster, I keep seeing this, but I sometimes see the opposite. That "MySQL is faster" meme seems peristent though, as if the PostgreSQL want to provide *some* justification for people to continue to have a reason

Re: (OT: PostgreSQL vs MySQL)

2006-04-06 Thread Craig Skinner
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:25:38PM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote: > I can second that. I am not a heavy database user by any means - I like > grep far too much for that - but when it can't be avoided, I'd rather > use something with a working foreign key implementation (though that > has apparently

Re: (OT: PostgreSQL vs MySQL)

2006-04-06 Thread Joachim Schipper
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 01:05:43PM -0700, Miles Keaton wrote: > On 4/5/06, David T Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just out of curiosity why did your company decide > > to go with Postgresql as opposed to mysql? > > Just somewhat curious considering you see mysql > > everywhere these days...

(OT: PostgreSQL vs MySQL)

2006-04-06 Thread Miles Keaton
On 4/5/06, David T Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just out of curiosity why did your company decide > to go with Postgresql as opposed to mysql? > Just somewhat curious considering you see mysql > everywhere these days... hi David - The first half of this post says it very well: http://www.