> > That why, we can ALSO be a voice to prove that PG
> is fast and not complex
> > and eventually disspell the notion that PG is a
> slow database.
the idea that postgresql is complex is rather ironic
since i really appreciated the simplicity of foreign
keys that mysql lacked at the time.
iow, i viewed postgresql as simpler in one "key" area,
pun intended.
as for complexity, this isn't a simple addition
calculator. it has features. with features comes
complexity. does pgsql have unnecessary complexity?
as a user fo this db for over 1.5 years, that thought
has never crossed my mind.
btw, did anyone go over to the mysql mailing list and
ask them if their db of choice is a "toy database?"
-lol-
why not go over to the fedora core mailing list and
tell them their distro is substandard because they
don't have apt.
i'd consider that approach trolling... and i also
believe we've been trolled here... even if out of
naivette.
postgresql is one darn fine database and it meets and
exceeds my needs - and i'm picky.
the license is hands down better than mysql. mysql
has to worry about oracle. as Tom pointed out, they
may have some advantages with speed, but only when
they don't use transactions (hint, postgrsql *always*
has that functionality). postgesql is less likely to
change your data w/o telling you.
is pgsql perfect? nope. the main gripe i heard last
time postgresql was mentioned on slashdot was that it
is a bit difficult (doable, but not easy) to backup
postgresql real time. a few folks said that was all
that was holding them up from switching to postgresql.
i've also heard folks call mysql a "toy database"
over on slashdot a few times. i don't believe this,
though, and have the sense to realize that mysql does
serve many people very well.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
