Chris Nolan wrote:
> Martijn Tonies wrote:
> Additionally, it is an accepted fact that MySQL is faster than the
> mighty, mighty PostgreSQL.
No, it is not. It is an accepted fact that MySQL is faster than
PostgreSQL for certain tasks.
> The PostgreSQL developers say that they are faster
> than most commercial databases in their normal fsync mode.
GreatBridge LLC claimed their PostgreSQL version was faster than
most commercial databases, in their specific benchmark. I am not
aware of any such claims from the current PGDG.
But there are a few gripes I have with comparing databases on
just performance:
- Performance data is not portable. You can't say that just
because one database is faster in one case, it will be faster in
another case too.
- Performance is overrated. For most applications, there is some
treshhold after which a database is 'fast enough'. I don't care
if I can serve 1200 or 1201 customers, if I only have 20 and grow
at a rate slower than Moore's Law.
- In most cases, you are not measuring database performance, but
DBA performance or developer performance.
>> I can think of a few others:
>>
>> - stored procedures (not finished with MySQL)
>> - triggers (not even on the roadmap with MySQL?)
>> - check constraints (please, Heiki?!)
>>
>> I'm a constraint-freak, if you like. I want my database to check the
>> data. In all sorts of possible ways...
>>
>
> Triggers are slated for the 5.1 timeframe, along with FK constraints for
> all table types (including BDB?).
> Check constraints have beem discussed in various presentations (at the
> 2003 MySQL conference, they were mentioned specifically with regard to
> MySQL's compliance to SQL92 and SQL:1999).
I expect them in the 5.1 timeframe too, since you can implement
check constraints in triggers. But the question remains if we can
expect a stable 5.1 before 2006.
Jochem
--
I don't get it
immigrants don't work
and steal our jobs
- Loesje
