At 1:51 AM -0500 12/28/01, Edmund Lian wrote:
>What I thought, but I was trying very hard to avoid a flamefest on the
>list! Oh well, you had the balls and I didn't! :-)
hmmm, I didn't really mean to sound quite so contentious. I don't
really have anything against MySQL, but would describe it more by
what it can't do than what it can do. I think it's appropriate for
use in a purely data retrieval role (i.e., something like the
dictionary I set up at http://internet-voyager.com/dictionary.html),
but you could do pretty much the same thing with a python shelve and
avoid the overhead of MySQL. I wouldn't think that MySQL would be a
very good choice for anything involving substantial interactivity
like a shopping cart.
>BTW, PostgreSQL may not scale to the degree that Oracle does, but it really
>performs better than Oracle in situations other than the Ultimate Ellison
>Dream, which is the 80-90% of the realworld. I'm sure you know this link
>already, but here's a benchmark (yes, there are lies and then there are
>benchmarks!):
>http://apachetoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-08-14-008-01-PR-MR-SW
Thanks. I hadn't seen this one. Some of it sounds a little bogus- I
doubt if everyone would agree that using ODBC across the board in
lieu of native interfaces really proves very much. Nonetheless, I
would certainly accept the general proposition that Postgres is
competitvie with M$SQL and Oracle for most purposes while MySQL is
not.
Later.
Richard Gordon
--------------------
Gordon Design
Web Design/Database Development
http://www.richardgordon.net
|