> John Cheng wrote:
>
>>> This is question for Juan, have you asked the MySQL mailing list?
>
> I'm afraid MySQL general list isn't as dynamic as PostgreSQL general list.
>
>
http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/216795 >
> MySQL general list: 4 answers in about 48 hours
> PostgreSQL general list: 27 answers in about 72 hours
>
>
> Thanks again to everybody for the amount of knowledge you have shared in
> this thread.
>
> Juan Karlos
>
>
> 2009/3/17 John Cheng <
chonger.cheng@gmail.com>
>>
>> This is question for Juan, have you asked the MySQL mailing list? What do
>> they say about this?
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Erik Jones <
ejones@engineyard.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2009, at 4:47 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The question is: Which DBMS do you think is the best for this kind of
>>>>> application? PostgreSQL or MySQL?
>>>>
>>>> As you can imagine, PostgreSQL.
>>>>
>>>> My main reasons are that in a proper transactional environment (ie
>>>> you're not using scary MyISAM tables) Pg is *much* better about handling
>>>> concurrent load, particularly concurrent activity by readers and
>>>> writers.
>>>
>>> Actually, following this comment it should be noted that if you were to
>>> choose MySQL you'd pretty much be making a decision to *not* be using
>>> transactions at all. The reason for this is that while InnoDB does support
>>> MySQL's geometry data types it does *not* support indexes on geometry
>>> columns, only MyISAM does which does not support transactions. Call me old
>>> fashioned if you like, but I like my data to have integrity ;)
>>>
>>> Erik Jones, Database Administrator
>>> Engine Yard
>>> Support, Scalability, Reliability
>>> 866.518.9273 x 260
>>> Location: US/Pacific
>>> IRC: mage2k
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (
pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
>>> To make changes to your subscription:
>>>
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - John L Cheng
>
>
