[linux-elitists] (no subject)

hirsch@zapmedia.com hirsch@zapmedia.com
Thu Feb 1 12:31:17 PST 2001


I'm not arguing with what you say.  I'm agreeing.  Once you need locks
and such MySQL is slow.  It only does full table locks, I think.

I have a single user production application on which MySQL flies and
postgres merely runs.  But if I were to build a multiuser hig volume
web production system I wouldn't use it either.

--Michael

Justin Sher writes:
 > On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 hirsch@zapmedia.com wrote:
 > 
 > > Justin Sher writes:
 > >  > On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de wrote:
 > >  > 
 > >  > > Ruben I Safir - Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO wrote:
 > >  > > > 
 > >  > > > I'm sure moving mysql files into Oracle is a nagging question posed to them.
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > Okay, I know MySQL sucks, but how is PostgreSQL comparable to Oracle?
 > >  > > I've started with a company without any Linux clue (they do have a VAX
 > >  > > and two Solaris boxen, though), and I'd like to demo a decent Linux
 > >  > > server, including a database.
 > >  > 
 > >  > 	Postgres is pretty good as far as relational databases go, it's
 > >  > much faster than Mysql and supports row-level locking and transactions.
 > >  > It's blob handling sucks though and has some leaks in it which I had to
 > >  > work around.  This should be fixed in the next version.
 > > 
 > > It isn't faster in my experience.  My impression is that it is a lot
 > > faster if you need to do a lot of transactions.  If you are prepared
 > > to not use transactions MySQL beats the pants on any db I've tested.
 > > 
 > 
 > Let's check the slashdot archives...  I have personally built several
 > commercial high volume web applications using mysql, postgres and
 > oracle.  
 > 
 > Mysql: Simple to use and get started, very forgiving as to what kind of
 > SQL it lets you put in it (I.E Group by behavior is kind of screwy) table
 > level locks and lack of transactions mean you'll have to switch.  Even for
 > a low volume system you'll have to switch once you get more than one
 > person using the database in an operation that requires table level locks
 > as the waits will be unbearable.  I have a hard time believing it is
 > faster on anything but TRIVIAL bench marks.  For all the real world
 > applications I have used it for it is DAMNed slow.
 > 
 > Oracle: Data mining fun, advanced sql and high speed but it's expensive
 > and you'll have to hire somebody to administer it and do backups.
 > 
 > Postgres: Faster than mysql! Yes, I ported the eact same running
 > commercial application to Postgres and it's MUCH faster, and it has row
 > level locks, transactions, perfect except it doesn't support some of the
 > trickier data mining of oracle and it's blob implementation is not as
 > simple as mysql but you can deal with it.
 > 
 > The guy who wrote sourceforge says Mysql sucks ass
 > http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20000705.php3?page=1
 > 
 > MySQL Problems Under Heavy Loads? 
 > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/11/06/2237208&mode=thread
 > 
 > MYSQL & Row Level Locking 
 > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/30/1553209&mode=thread
 > 
 > MySQL Developer Contests PostgreSQL Benchmarks 
 > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/16/0010230&mode=thread
 > 
 > Postgres Beats MySql, Interbase, And Proprietary DBs
 > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/14/2128237&mode=thread






More information about the linux-elitists mailing list