Re: Postgresql usage clip.
От | Ron Chmara |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postgresql usage clip. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 39332A8B.A46DC681@opus1.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Postgresql usage clip. ("Brett W. McCoy" <bmccoy@chapelperilous.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Postgresql usage clip.
Re: Postgresql usage clip. |
Список | pgsql-general |
"Brett W. McCoy" wrote: > > On Tue, 30 May 2000, Lincoln Yeoh wrote: > > > >What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in > > >efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though. > > > > Actually it said efficacy - more like effectiveness. You can be efficient > > but not effective and vice versa. > > Efficient but not effective... you mean like MySQL? :-P This has "fire" written all over it.... But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex structures that Pgsql can. Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited in platform support compared to mysql. Heck, on a global level, we're also managing Access, MSSQL, Oracle, Access, and even Filemaker. They all have features that others can't even come close to. That's why homogeneity in the data center, or the desktop, is a bad thing. Use what works best, when it works best. :-) -Ronabop
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: