Thread: Fw: Talking with other Dbases.
oops...meant to send to list. -------------------------------------------------------- | Daryl Chance | I have made this letter longer then | | Valuedata, LLC | usual because I lacked the time to | | Memphis, TN | make it shorter. -- Blaise Pascal | -------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daryl Chance" <dchance@valuedata.net> To: "Mitch Vincent" <mitch@venux.net> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 10:21 AM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Talking with other Dbases. > > If you're talking about connecting to another RDBMSs from within > PostgreSQL > > I suppose it would be possible with custom written functions (since most > > RDBMSs have a C API) but it being easy depends on your level of experience > > with C (and the two database APIs).. > > what about the ODBC for *nix, or is there one (think i remember seeing > something about it). > > > You can tunnel virtually anything through SSH, sure. > > > > I know MySQL is fast but just remember, it's just "A filesystem with an > SQL > > interface" -- that's ALL... :-) > > Cool, thats what I needed to know. as for MySQL, thats about all I really > need :P. > > Thanks, > -------------------------------------------------------- > | Daryl Chance | I have made this letter longer then | > | Valuedata, LLC | usual because I lacked the time to | > | Memphis, TN | make it shorter. -- Blaise Pascal | > -------------------------------------------------------- > >
Daryl Chance wrote: > > > I know MySQL is fast but just remember, it's just "A filesystem with an > > SQL > > > interface" -- that's ALL... :-) > > > > Cool, thats what I needed to know. as for MySQL, thats about all I really > > need :P. without knowing the hardware organization & availability of software, it's seems strange that you're considering different database systems for things that one is perfectly capable of performing. it's a bit of a fallacy that MySQL is better for read only database sites. on the low end (fewer connections), MySQL might be faster, but you'd have trouble buying hardware that was slow enough that you'd notice the difference. i've never used MySQL on a heavily loaded web site, but i've heard enough about MySQL breaking down to be a bit concerned about that. all in all, i'm just not clear on why you're interested in the added headache of multiple database systems & copying data between them. -- Jeff Hoffmann PropertyKey.com
> without knowing the hardware organization & availability of software, > it's seems strange that you're considering different database systems > for things that one is perfectly capable of performing. it's a bit of a > fallacy that MySQL is better for read only database sites. on the low > end (fewer connections), MySQL might be faster, but you'd have trouble > buying hardware that was slow enough that you'd notice the difference. > i've never used MySQL on a heavily loaded web site, but i've heard > enough about MySQL breaking down to be a bit concerned about that. all > in all, i'm just not clear on why you're interested in the added > headache of multiple database systems & copying data between them. As I said in my first email, it just depends :). I do plan on doing tests against MySQL and Postgrest to see which would be better for just serving out dynamic content (read only). Whichever one wins out will be the one i'm going to use. Personally, I've had no problems at all with MySQL...I'm looking into postgres because MySQL won't do the things I need to do on my next product version. And, the data won't be copied between the 2, MySQL will be dumped to, and thats it. So there won't really be much headache on that part. When the time comes, I'll choose. Currently, I'm just planning ahead. Thanks, -------------------------------------------------------- | Daryl Chance | I have made this letter longer then | | Valuedata, LLC | usual because I lacked the time to | | Memphis, TN | make it shorter. -- Blaise Pascal | --------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 11:00:20AM -0500, Daryl Chance wrote:
> > without knowing the hardware organization & availability of software,
> > it's seems strange that you're considering different database systems
> > for things that one is perfectly capable of performing. it's a bit of a
> > fallacy that MySQL is better for read only database sites. on the low
> > end (fewer connections), MySQL might be faster, but you'd have trouble
> > buying hardware that was slow enough that you'd notice the difference.
> > i've never used MySQL on a heavily loaded web site, but i've heard
> > enough about MySQL breaking down to be a bit concerned about that. all
> > in all, i'm just not clear on why you're interested in the added
> > headache of multiple database systems & copying data between them.
>
> As I said in my first email, it just depends :). I do plan on doing
> tests against MySQL and Postgrest to see which would be better for
> just serving out dynamic content (read only). Whichever one wins
> out will be the one i'm going to use. Personally, I've had no problems
> at all with MySQL...I'm looking into postgres because MySQL won't
> do the things I need to do on my next product version. And, the
> data won't be copied between the 2, MySQL will be dumped to, and thats
> it. So there won't really be much headache on that part. When the time
> comes, I'll choose. Currently, I'm just planning ahead.
We actually have a split shop here, because I set up the bug database
in postgres, and we later hired a web guy who was more familiar with MySQL.
He has since seen the light and converted much of his stuff to use Postgres,
but there are some semi-remote machines using MySQL. With PHP, even though
there is almost no consistency between database interfaces, it isn't too
hard to use both systems.
I still reccommend going with one database solution, though. Much
easier to set up, maintain, etc. I don't trust MySQL, so I'll let
you guess which one I reccommend...
--
Adam Haberlach | A billion hours ago, human life appeared on
adam@newsnipple.com | earth. A billion minutes ago, Christianity
http://www.newsnipple.com | emerged. A billion Coca-Colas ago was
'88 EX500 | yesterday morning. -1996 Coca-Cola Ann. Rpt.
Jeff Hoffmann wrote: > Daryl Chance wrote: > > > > > I know MySQL is fast but just remember, it's just "A > filesystem with an > > > SQL > > > > interface" -- that's ALL... :-) > > > > > > Cool, thats what I needed to know. as for MySQL, thats about > all I really > > > need :P. > > without knowing the hardware organization & availability of software, > it's seems strange that you're considering different database systems > for things that one is perfectly capable of performing. it's a bit of a > fallacy that MySQL is better for read only database sites. on the low > end (fewer connections), MySQL might be faster, but you'd have trouble > buying hardware that was slow enough that you'd notice the difference. > i've never used MySQL on a heavily loaded web site, but i've heard > enough about MySQL breaking down to be a bit concerned about that. all > in all, i'm just not clear on why you're interested in the added > headache of multiple database systems & copying data between them. I recently worked on a project in which it was necessary to source data on a daily basis across the organisation from a variety of sources: Oracle, SQL server (both 6.5 and 7) and various flat files (each system was developed and maintained by relatively autonomous business units). In this case, the choice of DB was out of my control (it was an M$ shop through & through), so PostgeSQL was out of the question. If things had been different in this situation, it would have been very handy to be able to talk to the other DBs via PostgreSQL. Sean.
Jeff Hoffmann wrote: > Daryl Chance wrote: > > > > > I know MySQL is fast but just remember, it's just "A > filesystem with an > > > SQL > > > > interface" -- that's ALL... :-) > > > > > > Cool, thats what I needed to know. as for MySQL, thats about > all I really > > > need :P. > > without knowing the hardware organization & availability of software, > it's seems strange that you're considering different database systems > for things that one is perfectly capable of performing. it's a bit of a > fallacy that MySQL is better for read only database sites. on the low > end (fewer connections), MySQL might be faster, but you'd have trouble > buying hardware that was slow enough that you'd notice the difference. > i've never used MySQL on a heavily loaded web site, but i've heard > enough about MySQL breaking down to be a bit concerned about that. all > in all, i'm just not clear on why you're interested in the added > headache of multiple database systems & copying data between them. I recently worked on a project in which it was necessary to source data on a daily basis across the organisation from a variety of sources: Oracle, SQL server (both 6.5 and 7) and various flat files (each system was developed and maintained by relatively autonomous business units). In this case, the choice of DB was out of my control (it was an M$ shop through & through), so PostgeSQL was out of the question. If things had been different in this situation, it would have been very handy to be able to talk to the other DBs via PostgreSQL. Sean.