Re: Postgresql usage clip.

Ron Chmara wrote:
> "Brett W. McCoy" wrote:
> > MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data
> > or data that doesn't change often.  It doesn't scale very well at all, and
> > for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrity
> > or supprto for views.  But beyond that, you really need something bigger
> > like Postgres (for a big site with a small budget) or Oracle (for a huge
> > site with a huger budget).
>
> Have a db comparison toy. Lots of fun.
>
> http://mysql.com/crash-me-choose.htmy

    There  was  some  discussion  about exactly that crashme this
    month. Some detailed analysis turned  out  that  many  places
    where it says "unsupported" in reality mean "does not support
    MySQL's non standard syntax". Others are totally  mislabeled.

    And  on the performance, it triggered a problem in PostgreSQL
    that is  unlikely  in  real  world  scenarios  (creating  and
    dropping  20,000  tables first, blowing up a system catalog).
    Then running the test queries  with  the  blown  up  catalog.
    Really smart benchmark :-)


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #