Hi,
"Performance improvements and replication".
This is MySQL. Not a database. I'd keep my data in a text file instead of
MySQL!
My friends, who use MySQL, say they would compile it without transaction
support, since MySQL users would not need it.
MySQL -> for the web...
That's all :)
Regards and best wishes,
Devrim
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Robert Berger wrote:
> This argument is out of date. MySQL currently supports
> transactions, foreign
> keys, and outer joins. (4.1 will support subselects)
>
> As for fault tolerance, MySQL has built in support for replication.
>
> A couple years ago I converted a project from MySQL to PostgreSQL
> because
> of MySQL's lack of features. I am now in the process of converting
> back to
> MySQL because of the performance improvements and replication.
>
>
> >
> > Be a little bit careful about benchmarks. Whether postgresql or
> > mysql is
> > faster depends on what you're doing. If all you want to do is the
> > occasional
> > insert and lots and lots of simple selects, mysql (or even grep)
> > will beat
> > postgres. If you want to do subselects, transactions, foreign
> > keys, outer
> > joins, fault tolerence or anything else that makes a database a
> > database,
> > mysql just can't do it.
> >
> > See if MySQL and PostgreSQL satisfy your business requirements and then
> > decide which one you want.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
--
Devrim GUNDUZ
devrim@oper.metu.edu.tr
devrim.gunduz@linux.org.tr
devrimg@tr.net
Web : http://devrim.oper.metu.edu.tr
------------------------------------------------------------------
