Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data
От | John Cheng |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
Дата | |
Msg-id | a18a22ec0903171047k364cada6r3e00e23275235ffe@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data (Erik Jones <ejones@engineyard.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data
Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
Список | pgsql-general |
This is question for Juan, have you asked the MySQL mailing list? What do they say about this?
--
- John L Cheng
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Erik Jones <ejones@engineyard.com> wrote:
Actually, following this comment it should be noted that if you were to choose MySQL you'd pretty much be making a decision to *not* be using transactions at all. The reason for this is that while InnoDB does support MySQL's geometry data types it does *not* support indexes on geometry columns, only MyISAM does which does not support transactions. Call me old fashioned if you like, but I like my data to have integrity ;)
On Mar 17, 2009, at 4:47 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:The question is: Which DBMS do you think is the best for this kind of
application? PostgreSQL or MySQL?
As you can imagine, PostgreSQL.
My main reasons are that in a proper transactional environment (ie
you're not using scary MyISAM tables) Pg is *much* better about handling
concurrent load, particularly concurrent activity by readers and writers.
Erik Jones, Database Administrator
Engine Yard
Support, Scalability, Reliability
866.518.9273 x 260
Location: US/Pacific
IRC: mage2k
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
- John L Cheng
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: