Ron Chmara wrote:
> "Brett W. McCoy" wrote:
> > MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data
> > or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and
> > for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrity
> > or supprto for views. But beyond that, you really need something bigger
> > like Postgres (for a big site with a small budget) or Oracle (for a huge
> > site with a huger budget).
>
> Have a db comparison toy. Lots of fun.
>
> http://mysql.com/crash-me-choose.htmy
There was some discussion about exactly that crashme this
month. Some detailed analysis turned out that many places
where it says "unsupported" in reality mean "does not support
MySQL's non standard syntax". Others are totally mislabeled.
And on the performance, it triggered a problem in PostgreSQL
that is unlikely in real world scenarios (creating and
dropping 20,000 tables first, blowing up a system catalog).
Then running the test queries with the blown up catalog.
Really smart benchmark :-)
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
