The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Tim Perdue wrote:
>
> > I took a real-world page from our site
> > <http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=1> and made it portable
> > to both databases. Of course, I could not import the "body" of the
>
> did you take the time to optimize the queries to take advantage of
> features that MySQL doesn't have, or just straight plug-n-play?
>
What a "real-world", one single URL, whow.
The "made it portable to both" lets me think it is stripped down to the common denominator that both databases
support. That is no transactions, no subqueries, no features.
That's no "comparision", it's BS - sorry. If you want to write a good article, take a couple of
existing web applications and analyze the complexity of their underlying data model, what features are
important/unimportantfor them and what could be done better in them with each database. Then make suggestions
which application should use which database and explain why you think so.
> > Further, I have had situations where postgres actually had DUPLICATE
> > ids in a primary key field, probably due to some abort or other nasty
> > situation in the middle of a commit. How did I recover from That?
> > Well, I had to run a count(*) next to each ID and select out the rows
> > where there was more than one of each "unique" id, then reinsert those
> > rows and drop and rebuild the indexes and reset the sequences.
>
> Odd, were you using transactions here, or transactionless?
Mark, you cannot use Postgres transactionless. Each single statement run outside of a transaction block has
it's own transaction.
Anyway, what version of Postgres was it? How big was the indexed field?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
