- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Sun: MySQL buy 'most important in software history'
|
|
|
Comments (7)
Let the marketing wars begin. As soon as the word "scalable" appears everyone should duck for cover and start doing more meaningful things like watching reruns of Gilligan's Island.
Yeah boy, mysql doesn't scale.
Poor old google, if only they were using postgres. Poor old sun, what were they thinking.
Dude, 1995 was a long time ago - seriously, get over it.
Poor old google, if only they were using postgres. Poor old sun, what were they thinking.
Dude, 1995 was a long time ago - seriously, get over it.
herzeleid: A cheap shot at postgres was uncalled for. It's a solid technology...unfortunately one with a God-awful name that keeps it well off the front page of popularity. 8^)
> herzeleid: A cheap shot at postgres was uncalled for. It's a solid technology...
Hey, I like postgres, and have used it. I'm just saying, mysql is a speed demon and beats postgres performance-wise no matter what sort of tests I've run.
Here's a typical example: I use maia mailguard, a spam quarantine management system which is built on open source components such as postfix, amavis, spamassassin, razor, clamav, apache, php, mysql or postgres and perl. I subscribe to the mailing lists, and hear all the problems people have setting it up, troubleshooting configuration issues etc.
An rdbms is used to store emails, user policies, whitelists/blacklists, bayesian statistics etc, and is accessed constantly from user web requests (quarantine management activity), from amavisd (spam filtering, statistics updating and mail storage), and from perl scripts (spam reporting and quarantine maintenance/expiry). One thing I'm always hearing is that the folks running postgres always get lower performance than the ones running mysql, and that appears to be universal.
However, I will say that with the release of 8.3.0 the postgres users are now reporting dramatically better performance, perhaps even in the same league as mysql.
The difference between postgres and mysql reminds me of the difference between linux and freebsd. The one started as a feature complete program steeped in academia. The other started as a practical, stripped down hot rod built to scratch an itch.
Over the years, postgres gets faster and mysql gets more feature complete. no need to quarrel about which is better - we all win.
Hey, I like postgres, and have used it. I'm just saying, mysql is a speed demon and beats postgres performance-wise no matter what sort of tests I've run.
Here's a typical example: I use maia mailguard, a spam quarantine management system which is built on open source components such as postfix, amavis, spamassassin, razor, clamav, apache, php, mysql or postgres and perl. I subscribe to the mailing lists, and hear all the problems people have setting it up, troubleshooting configuration issues etc.
An rdbms is used to store emails, user policies, whitelists/blacklists, bayesian statistics etc, and is accessed constantly from user web requests (quarantine management activity), from amavisd (spam filtering, statistics updating and mail storage), and from perl scripts (spam reporting and quarantine maintenance/expiry). One thing I'm always hearing is that the folks running postgres always get lower performance than the ones running mysql, and that appears to be universal.
However, I will say that with the release of 8.3.0 the postgres users are now reporting dramatically better performance, perhaps even in the same league as mysql.
The difference between postgres and mysql reminds me of the difference between linux and freebsd. The one started as a feature complete program steeped in academia. The other started as a practical, stripped down hot rod built to scratch an itch.
Over the years, postgres gets faster and mysql gets more feature complete. no need to quarrel about which is better - we all win.
Turn on the the parts of MySQL that make it ACID compliant and watch its performance get worse than what you see with PostgreSQL 7.1
@darrenr114 -
> Turn on the the parts of MySQL that make it ACID compliant and watch its performance get worse than what you see with PostgreSQL 7.1
urban legend I'm afraid - mysql is still faster - however postgres may have caught up, I'll have to verify with 8.3
> Turn on the the parts of MySQL that make it ACID compliant and watch its performance get worse than what you see with PostgreSQL 7.1
urban legend I'm afraid - mysql is still faster - however postgres may have caught up, I'll have to verify with 8.3
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
If Schwartz really wanted to have a "holistic" stack comparable with MS, then they should have bought Sybase (SQL Server is based on the Sybase technology.)