%% martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: mfk> a client of one of my servers has recently requested mysql. i mfk> need postgres, so i'd install mysql in parallel, but i first mfk> would like to know about the negative aspects. from what i mfk> remember, mysql isn't a true database, and security isn't one of mfk> it's virtues.
Of course it's a "true database". Postgres does support more SQL features than MySQL, but MySQL has all the basics. The main features most DB developers miss in MySQL are subselects (coming soon I think) and transactions (ditto). I know of no reason at all that MySQL would be considered less secure than Postgres, assuming you mean "secure" as in people getting unauthorized access to your database. MySQL has a much larger installed userbase than Postgres so you're likely to get a lot more clients using it. It is generally considered to be faster and consume less system resources for straightforward DB work, most especially SELECT. It's really tuned for a "read-often, update-more-rarely" environment, typical of most web sites for example. MySQL has been rock-solid for _much_ longer than Postgres; up until the last 12-18 mos. Postgres has really had very serious stability and scalability problems. MySQL has been happily serving databases with many millions of rows since 1995, at least. Obviously all of this is somewhat subjective. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
