On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:01:13AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Why? Personally, I think it falls under 'the right tool for the job' ...
> there are two things I use MySQL for: phpAdsNew and Spamassassin/Bayes DB
> ... neither of which I care if there is data lost for, and for which using
> Berkeley DB would work just as well, if I cared to learn its API ...
>
> And ya, that is *still* the level I put MySQL at ... Berkeley DB + an SQL
> frontend.
But that's not the level they or many other people put them at. If you'd
used just about any other database I think it'd be much easier to pass
it off as 'the right tool', especially if that database clearly didn't
compete against PostgreSQL (SQLite comes to mind).
> How many ppl on this list are using Berkeley DB for their stuff, when a
> PostgreSQL backend is available? Postfix has native PostgreSQL hooks for
> most of their maps, but how many ppl use that over hash tables?
There's a huge difference in the level of complexity of using the hash
tables versus using PostgreSQL, and functionally they're nothing alike.
That's why so many people (myself included) use the hash tables.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461