Thread
-
RE: Mysql comparison
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 1999-04-27T01:07:01Z
Moved to hackers. It's probably the best place. As to the comparison, I just started looking into that this mourning with a question from someone else - with luck we'll have something there around the 6.5 release. On 27-Apr-99 Joel Shellman wrote: > Why don't you have a comparison with MySQL in your chart? I guess I ran > into MySQL first, so perhaps it's a result of my experience, but I've > seen MySQL as the closest thing to PostgreSQL's market as they are both > open source (to a certain extent) and freely available. > > At least do you have any idea how fast postgresql is compared to MySQL? > > Also, it says that postgresql is not multithreaded--what exactly does > that mean? Does that mean it can only handle one query at a time? That > seems very strange. > > Thank you, > -- > Joel Shellman > knOcean Interactive Corporation > http://corp.knOcean.com/ -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com flame-mail: /dev/null # include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2 Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ========================================================================== -
Re: [HACKERS] RE: Mysql comparison
Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com> — 1999-04-27T03:44:37Z
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote: ... > > Also, it says that postgresql is not multithreaded--what exactly does > > that mean? Does that mean it can only handle one query at a time? That > > seems very strange. There is more than one way of doing more than one thing at a time. Multithreading is one way, and multiprocessing is another. BTW, even though MySQL is multithreaded, any thread that modifies a table (update, delete, insert) will block all other threads on that table until it completes. Therefore, multithreading or multiprocessing has little to do with any parallelism a rdms may utilize. You have to look deeper. > -- > ========================================================================== > Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com flame-mail: /dev/null > # include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2 > Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com > Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com > ========================================================================== Tom
-
Re: [HACKERS] RE: Mysql comparison
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 1999-04-27T13:52:56Z
> Moved to hackers. It's probably the best place. As to the comparison, > I just started looking into that this mourning with a question from > someone else - with luck we'll have something there around the 6.5 release. > > Why don't you have a comparison with MySQL in your chart? I guess I ran > > into MySQL first, so perhaps it's a result of my experience, but I've > > seen MySQL as the closest thing to PostgreSQL's market as they are both > > open source (to a certain extent) and freely available. afaik MySQL is freely available for non-commercial use only. > > At least do you have any idea how fast postgresql is compared to MySQL? Since MySQL does not provide transactions, perhaps the most fundamental *required* feature for a relational database, it may be faster for simple queries on small databases. Since Postgres has an optimizer, transactions, etc. it should perform better on large queries and on complex transactions. But ymmv. > > Also, it says that postgresql is not multithreaded--what exactly does > > that mean? Does that mean it can only handle one query at a time? That > > seems very strange. ... And intentionally misleading. What it means is that the MySQL folks are providing disinformation and have no apparent interest in doing otherwise. Since it is a commercial product, you had better be ready for marketing BS from them. The last time I looked, their "features comparison", labeled "Crash Me" !, had a 5-20% error rate on the facts, and that is only for those Postgres features I was familiar with. Who knows how correct the comparisons are for other DBs? Check the archives for previous discussions... - Tom -- Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu South Pasadena, California -
Re: [HACKERS] RE: Mysql comparison
Oleg Broytmann <phd@sun.med.ru> — 1999-04-27T14:02:27Z
Hello! On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > afaik MySQL is freely available for non-commercial use only. No, MySQL is free for any use. The only exception is you cannot bundle it with a commercial product. > - Tom > > -- > Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu > South Pasadena, California Oleg. ---- Oleg Broytmann http://members.xoom.com/phd2/ phd2@earthling.net Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. -
Re: [HACKERS] RE: Mysql comparison
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 1999-04-27T14:42:46Z
> You totally missed on this one. It was on the POSTGRESQL SITE that said > that postgresql is not multithreaded! On the comparison chart comparing > postgresql with other databases, oracle and sybase are the only ones > listed as multithreaded. Is my face red :( I'll save the MySQL diatribe for later... - Tom -- Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu South Pasadena, California -
Re: [HACKERS] RE: Mysql comparison
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> — 1999-04-27T16:25:20Z
> > You totally missed on this one. It was on the POSTGRESQL SITE that said > > that postgresql is not multithreaded! On the comparison chart comparing > > postgresql with other databases, oracle and sybase are the only ones > > listed as multithreaded. > > Is my face red :( > > I'll save the MySQL diatribe for later... My experience is that MySQL has gotten better at being more honest. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026