Re: Postgresql usage clip.
От | Brett W. McCoy |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postgresql usage clip. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.10.10005292254160.15474-100000@chapelperilous.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Postgresql usage clip. (Ron Chmara <ron@Opus1.COM>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > 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. 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). Brett W. McCoy http://www.chapelperilous.net --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The Lord gave us farmers two strong hands so we could grab as much as we could with both of them." -- Joseph Heller, "Catch-22"
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: