Use PostgreSQL
-
Good grief Martin! Those are typical storybook reasons that you've probably read somewhere on a post and haven't drawn the first conclusion from actual experience outside of tinkering around with it. For one, not being SQL92 compliant is almost a joke. Here's a list of the very few differences... http://www.mysql.com/doc/D/i/Differences_from_ANSI.html For two, a well constructed app can get by without the use of transactions. They are part of the DBMS to make life easier on the coder, but support was left out because the intent of MySQL was speed. MySQL is several times faster than Postgres. Also, wait until 4.x when transaction support is there and it's still gonna be a lot faster than Postgres. Now, will you hear me saying don't use Postgres? Not really, but I much more prefer MySQL. Jeremy Falcon Imputek
Jeremy Falcon wrote: MySQL is several times faster than Postgres. I'll have to disagree with you on that. Because PostgreSQL has a lot of features doesn't mean it is slower. A properly designed DB that is optimized should run really fast. Even Oracle and DB2 suck when DB is not structured correctly. I have tables that are over 200MB in size and I get good response times, plus I have all the features that I want.
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: PostgreSQL has a long history dating back to the mid-eighties at the University of California at Berkely No, you're thinking BerkleyDB which Postgres happens to support. Guess what Sherlock? MySQL supports it too. Jeremy Falcon Imputek
Here's the history of PostgreSQL as I know it. http://www.daemonnews.org/199907/devhistory.html
-
Nishant S wrote: Martin, from experience we've found postgres to be good for small amounts of data, but when the db gets bigger and bigger postgres gets slower and slower and sometimes even crashes I don't know alot of my tables are over 200MB, and if I try to import one into Access 2000 via ODBC it crashes Access. I haven't noticed any slow down either. I think your DB is poorly designed and/or not properly optimized. Even Oracle sucks if your DB design is flawed.
Martin Marvinski wrote: I don't know alot of my tables are over 200MB Heh, 200MB+ is NOT a big table, even Access can handle that. It is when you reach a GB and more you can talk about a big table. Anyway, which dbms to use is not allways based on the overall performance. If all you want is very fast read operations, then why would you trade that for transactions?. At the company i work for we have a lot of relatively static data, all those tables are read in to shared memory and accessed through binary searching, no transactions here but pure speed. The procedure of picking the right dbms is too important to just go for the one with the best/most commercials. "It could have been worse, it could have been ME!"
-
But MySQL has a cute little dolphin!
Fair point, it does indeed have a dolphin. Quite a nice looking dolphin at that.
-
Nishant S wrote: Martin, from experience we've found postgres to be good for small amounts of data, but when the db gets bigger and bigger postgres gets slower and slower and sometimes even crashes I don't know alot of my tables are over 200MB, and if I try to import one into Access 2000 via ODBC it crashes Access. I haven't noticed any slow down either. I think your DB is poorly designed and/or not properly optimized. Even Oracle sucks if your DB design is flawed.
I will repeat: Can you comment on this article? http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20000705.php3 Now for my usage I am just needing something on my local machine to test with. My local database is never left up for more than a few hours and I am often cleaning it out and doing a reload of data with SQL statments from what ever sources. Do you really feel for this usage PostgreSQL is that much better? Especially when I see figures to 2 to 3 better performance for MySQL? Just asking given this thread exists. The one database I do not like is JET. So making a comparison against it will make anything look better. Compare MySQL,Postgres, and Oracle to be fair. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: MySQL is several times faster than Postgres. I'll have to disagree with you on that. Because PostgreSQL has a lot of features doesn't mean it is slower. A properly designed DB that is optimized should run really fast. Even Oracle and DB2 suck when DB is not structured correctly. I have tables that are over 200MB in size and I get good response times, plus I have all the features that I want.
Martin Marvinski wrote: I'll have to disagree with you on that. I should've known. Martin Marvinski wrote: Because PostgreSQL has a lot of features doesn't mean it is slower. Hmm... It doesn't have a lot of features as you put it. As far as tools and utils it actually has less. A level 5 normalized, well-structured DB is as fast as you are going to get. I don't have poor DB design skills!!! Start learning instead of being stubborn. Unlike you, I will never get into a disagreement with something I know little about. MySQL is three times faster than Postgres. Don't take my word for it - research! Jeremy Falcon Imputek
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: I don't know alot of my tables are over 200MB Heh, 200MB+ is NOT a big table, even Access can handle that. It is when you reach a GB and more you can talk about a big table. Anyway, which dbms to use is not allways based on the overall performance. If all you want is very fast read operations, then why would you trade that for transactions?. At the company i work for we have a lot of relatively static data, all those tables are read in to shared memory and accessed through binary searching, no transactions here but pure speed. The procedure of picking the right dbms is too important to just go for the one with the best/most commercials. "It could have been worse, it could have been ME!"
jan larsen wrote: The procedure of picking the right dbms is too important to just go for the one with the best/most commercials. Yup yup! Jeremy Falcon Imputek
-
Here's the history of PostgreSQL as I know it. http://www.daemonnews.org/199907/devhistory.html
Ok, technically a couple of guys from Berkley worked on it, but that's not to say Berkley did. There's a difference. Notice, Postgres95 was when SQL capabilities were added. This was when the two guys left. Either way, it was an interesting read. Jeremy Falcon Imputek
-
I will repeat: Can you comment on this article? http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20000705.php3 Now for my usage I am just needing something on my local machine to test with. My local database is never left up for more than a few hours and I am often cleaning it out and doing a reload of data with SQL statments from what ever sources. Do you really feel for this usage PostgreSQL is that much better? Especially when I see figures to 2 to 3 better performance for MySQL? Just asking given this thread exists. The one database I do not like is JET. So making a comparison against it will make anything look better. Compare MySQL,Postgres, and Oracle to be fair. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I will repeat: Can you comment on this article? Yes I can. MySQL will probably beat Oracle everytime in Reads/Writes and I've actually read some benchmarks in eweek.com that showed this. The reason for this is that MySQL is not a true RDBMS, and of course if all it does is read/write tables then of course it will be faster. My point is that MySQL shouldn't be put in the league of Oracle, DB2, and PostgreSQL. If you want to do a simple website that servers up dynamic content then of course MySQL will be fine for you. On the other hand if you are building large e-comerce sites with JSP, and corporate backends that's when you would implement PostgreSQL. I think I wasn't clear in my initial post that PostgreSQL is for enterprise level use while MySQL is useful for running a small site that needs to run quickly because the Web server, Database, and all other functions are on one x86 PC. Most work I do involves clustering, and 6 nines reliablity. So I think we were comparing apples to oranges. :)
-
Ok, technically a couple of guys from Berkley worked on it, but that's not to say Berkley did. There's a difference. Notice, Postgres95 was when SQL capabilities were added. This was when the two guys left. Either way, it was an interesting read. Jeremy Falcon Imputek
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Ok, technically a couple of guys from Berkley worked on it, but that's not to say Berkley did. Actually it wasn't just "a couple of guys". The legendary UC Berekely professor Michael Stonebraker led the development team, and many of his students worked on it. A Lot of them got jobs as RDBMS designers at Oracle, and IBM.
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: I don't know alot of my tables are over 200MB Heh, 200MB+ is NOT a big table, even Access can handle that. It is when you reach a GB and more you can talk about a big table. Anyway, which dbms to use is not allways based on the overall performance. If all you want is very fast read operations, then why would you trade that for transactions?. At the company i work for we have a lot of relatively static data, all those tables are read in to shared memory and accessed through binary searching, no transactions here but pure speed. The procedure of picking the right dbms is too important to just go for the one with the best/most commercials. "It could have been worse, it could have been ME!"
jan larsen wrote: If all you want is very fast read operations, then why would you trade that for transactions?. Read my response to Michael A. Barnhart in this thread. :)
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: I'll have to disagree with you on that. I should've known. Martin Marvinski wrote: Because PostgreSQL has a lot of features doesn't mean it is slower. Hmm... It doesn't have a lot of features as you put it. As far as tools and utils it actually has less. A level 5 normalized, well-structured DB is as fast as you are going to get. I don't have poor DB design skills!!! Start learning instead of being stubborn. Unlike you, I will never get into a disagreement with something I know little about. MySQL is three times faster than Postgres. Don't take my word for it - research! Jeremy Falcon Imputek
Read my response to Michael A. Barnhart in this thread. :)