Jeff Hoffmann wrote:
> Daryl Chance wrote:
>
> > > > I know MySQL is fast but just remember, it's just "A
> filesystem with an
> > > SQL
> > > > interface" -- that's ALL... :-)
> > >
> > > Cool, thats what I needed to know. as for MySQL, thats about
> all I really
> > > need :P.
>
> without knowing the hardware organization & availability of software,
> it's seems strange that you're considering different database systems
> for things that one is perfectly capable of performing. it's a bit of a
> fallacy that MySQL is better for read only database sites. on the low
> end (fewer connections), MySQL might be faster, but you'd have trouble
> buying hardware that was slow enough that you'd notice the difference.
> i've never used MySQL on a heavily loaded web site, but i've heard
> enough about MySQL breaking down to be a bit concerned about that. all
> in all, i'm just not clear on why you're interested in the added
> headache of multiple database systems & copying data between them.
I recently worked on a project in which it was necessary to source data
on a daily basis across the organisation from a variety of sources: Oracle,
SQL server (both 6.5 and 7) and various flat files (each system was
developed
and maintained by relatively autonomous business units). In this case, the
choice of DB was out of my control (it was an M$ shop through & through), so
PostgeSQL was out of the question. If things had been different in this
situation, it would have been very handy to be able to talk to the other
DBs via PostgreSQL.
Sean.
