On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, martin f krafft wrote:
> hi, > *PLEASE DON'T MAKE THIS INTO A FLAME WAR* > if you are taking anything personal, please don't reply... > > i have always used postgresql for everything. i don't really know why, > but i know that it's a pretty scalable, high-performance database > server that is secure and powerful. > > a client of one of my servers has recently requested mysql. i need > postgres, so i'd install mysql in parallel, but i first would like to > know about the negative aspects. from what i remember, mysql isn't a > true database, and security isn't one of it's virtues. The differences are basically these: postgres has better concurrency, so selects never block selects, updates block selects on a per-record basis. In mysql, updates, inserts, and selects all block each other except in the most trivial cases. Postgres requires a vacuum and vacuum analyze periodically to maintain performance. mysql does not. Postgres supports most of ANSI SQL. Mysql supports some of it. Postgres has nice support for adding new datatypes and stored procedures in practically any language you choose. Oh, and don't go anywhere near mysql 4. -jwb
