Ola Sundell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, mlw wrote:
>
> > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > >
> > > Look at this: (top one)
> > >
> > > http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html
> > >
> > > Does anyone feel like running the MySQL benchmark against postgres 7.2 to
> > > see if there's been a real speed improvement??
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > These guys are just A$%$%holes. We have to come up with a benchmark which shows
> > the the difference between a stupid little file-locking single user toy, and a
> > real tansactional system.
> >
> > Maybe we too can put in little snide remarks about MySQL.
>
> Now, let's be a bit sensible, here. MySQL is a great product, if you want
> a single-user SQL interface to flat files. It is blazingly fast when it
> comes to retrieving information in an environment where there is little or
> no data change.
The snide remarks on the page about things not working was a bit much. I was
ticked off. On a more serious note, MySQL isn't even really SQL. It supports a
lot of the syntax, but none of the intentions. Things like sub-selects are
vital to being able to model a problem. Transactions are vital to predictable
behavior. High concurrency is vital to "real" performance.
I have said it at least a hundred times before, I have never been able to
finish a project started in MySQL. I always come across something that the
database *must* do, but MySQL can't.
It is clear that anyone who runs a single user benchmark against a database
server capable of multiple connections is not testing their system in its
intended mode of use. They are resorting to the worst sort of microsoftian
benchmark FUD.
>
> We all know the strenghts of postgresql. It is a fully-featured
> transactional database. MySQL is not, but it is neither stupid, nor a
> toy. It has its purposes, as does postgresql.
What purpose does MySQL fit? It isn't very good at doing the sorts of things
SQL is supposed to do and there are faster database libraries (ala Berkeley
DB). What would be the point of using MySQL for anything?
