Re: Postgresql usage clip.
What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in
efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though.
e
--
This message was my two cents worth. Please deposit two cents into my
e-gold account by following this link:
http://rootworks.com/twocentsworth.cgi?102861
275A B627 1826 D627 ED35 B8DF 7DDE 4428 0F5C 4454
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 20000529131729.X28594@fw.wintelcom.net
Erich <hh@cyberpass.net> writes:
What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in
efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though.
And Oracle. I would love to see more "neutral" performance tests between
databases though. I suppose MS SQL could be could good for somethings as it
is based on the code bought from Sybase.
Still, the effiency can be a lot of things. I like PostgreSQL mainly
because I can develop and deploy applications in a cost efficient way with
it. But this equation will ofcourse depend on your organizations demands
and skills.
Regards,
Gunnar
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: Erich'smessageofMon29May2000125723-0700PDT
At 12:57 PM 29-05-2000 -0700, Erich wrote:
What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in
efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though.
Actually it said efficacy - more like effectiveness. You can be efficient
but not effective and vice versa.
Well whatever it is, it's a nice article to show the PHBs.
Cheerio,
Link.
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95?
98? > mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
For home use/development, run either Linux or FreeBSD in another partition on
your Win9x machine. Or, even use one of the 'WinLinux' style distributions
that cooexist with Windows very well. You'll (and PostgreSQL will) be much
happier with a unix-like environment (which Cygwin duplicates anyway for the
Win32 PostgreSQL server) for running the PostgreSQL server. Get VMWare and run
Win9x in a window on your Linux partition to test Win9x apps if you must run
Win9x.
Or, port Cygwin to Win9x so that PostgreSQL can run on Win9x.
However, the point is taken -- MySQL does Win9x. We don't.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 39332E6F.AB7D236D@opus1.comReference msg id not found: Pine.BSF.4.21.0005292346240.608-100000@thelab.hub.orgReference msg id not found: 39332E6F.AB7D236D@opus1.com | Resolved by subject fallback
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in
efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though.Actually it said efficacy - more like effectiveness. You can be efficient
but not effective and vice versa.
Efficient but not effective... you mean like MySQL? :-P
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.chapelperilous.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Lord gave us farmers two strong hands so we could grab as much as
we could with both of them."
-- Joseph Heller, "Catch-22"
"Brett W. McCoy" wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in
efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though.Actually it said efficacy - more like effectiveness. You can be efficient
but not effective and vice versa.Efficient but not effective... you mean like MySQL? :-P
This has "fire" written all over it....
But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise
level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster
simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex structures that
Pgsql can. Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited
in platform support compared to mysql.
Heck, on a global level, we're also managing Access, MSSQL, Oracle,
Access, and even Filemaker. They all have features that others can't
even come close to. That's why homogeneity in the data center, or
the desktop, is a bad thing. Use what works best, when it works best.
:-)
-Ronabop
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
"Brett W. McCoy" wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in
efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though.Actually it said efficacy - more like effectiveness. You can be efficient
but not effective and vice versa.Efficient but not effective... you mean like MySQL? :-P
This has "fire" written all over it....
But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise
level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster
simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex structures that
Pgsql can. Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited
in platform support compared to mysql.
Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
This has "fire" written all over it....
But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise
level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster
simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex structures that
Pgsql can. Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited
in platform support compared to mysql.Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
Actually, I daresay PostgreSQL runs on more platforms, than other RDBMSes.
That was my understanding too ... which is why I'm really curious as to
which one MySQL runs on that we don't ...
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: Pine.LNX.4.10.10005292300010.15474-100000@chapelperilous.net | Resolved by subject fallback
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited
in platform support compared to mysql.Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
-Ronabop
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
This has "fire" written all over it....
But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise
level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster
simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex structures that
Pgsql can. Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited
in platform support compared to mysql.
MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data
or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and
for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrity
or supprto for views. But beyond that, you really need something bigger
like Postgres (for a big site with a small budget) or Oracle (for a huge
site with a huger budget).
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.chapelperilous.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Lord gave us farmers two strong hands so we could grab as much as
we could with both of them."
-- Joseph Heller, "Catch-22"
At 10:28 PM 29-05-2000 -0400, Brett W. McCoy wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in
efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though.Actually it said efficacy - more like effectiveness. You can be efficient
but not effective and vice versa.Efficient but not effective... you mean like MySQL? :-P
Now, now, be nice :).
MySQL is pretty good at most of the things it does and attempts to do. And
I really like the GET LOCK feature/function, is it possible to add
something like that to Postgresql?
And it's fast :).
It seems that with fsync off Postgresql can be just as fast with updates,
but I'm still reluctant to do that as data recovery methods don't seem as
developed on Postgresql - arguably you could say because there's less need
of them compared to other databases ;). But that may only be true if fsync
is _on_.
(I get the impression that you can specify fsync on a per connection basis
with v7.0, that'll be real cool - will be tempted to start up two
connections per app).
How fast comparatively are inserts for Postgresql?
Cheerio,
Link.
On Mon, 29 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
This has "fire" written all over it....
But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise
level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster
simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex structures that
Pgsql can. Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited
in platform support compared to mysql.Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
Actually, I daresay PostgreSQL runs on more platforms, than other RDBMSes.
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.chapelperilous.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Lord gave us farmers two strong hands so we could grab as much as
we could with both of them."
-- Joseph Heller, "Catch-22"
"Brett W. McCoy" wrote:
MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data
or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and
for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrity
or supprto for views. But beyond that, you really need something bigger
like Postgres (for a big site with a small budget) or Oracle (for a huge
site with a huger budget).
Have a db comparison toy. Lots of fun.
http://mysql.com/crash-me-choose.htmy
-Bop
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2).
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.chapelperilous.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello. Jim Rockford's machine, this is Larry Doheny's machine. Will you
please have your master call my master at his convenience? Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
-- "The Rockford Files"
"Brett W. McCoy" wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
limited
in platform support compared to mysql.
And:
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
mySQL even does OS/2. Really.But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2).
Brett W. McCoy
Yes. How much money has to be paid to run postgreSQL on Win95? Is it
comparable in cost to get support for that platform?
:-)
-Ron
--
Brought to you from iBop the iMac, a MacOS, Win95, Win98, LinuxPPC machine,
which is currently in LinuxPPC land. Your bopping may vary.
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95?
98? > mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
For home use/development, run either Linux or FreeBSD in another partition on
your Win9x machine. Or, even use one of the 'WinLinux' style distributions
that cooexist with Windows very well. You'll (and PostgreSQL will) be much
happier with a unix-like environment (which Cygwin duplicates anyway for the
Win32 PostgreSQL server) for running the PostgreSQL server. Get VMWare and run
Win9x in a window on your Linux partition to test Win9x apps if you must run
Win9x.
Hm. See my .sig (missing from prior posts).... yes, it's nice that a hardware
platform can be bent to work with certain applications. I do lots of bending.
However, most users prefer to get applications for their platform, not the
other way round. Not all of us are platform agnostic. ;-)
However, the point is taken -- MySQL does Win9x. We don't.
Yet?
-Ronabop
--
Brought to you from iBop the iMac, a MacOS, Win95, Win98, LinuxPPC machine,
which is currently in LinuxPPC land. Your bopping may vary.
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Lamar Owen wrote:
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95?
98? > mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
For home use/development, run either Linux or FreeBSD in another partition on
your Win9x machine. Or, even use one of the 'WinLinux' style distributions
that cooexist with Windows very well. You'll (and PostgreSQL will) be much
happier with a unix-like environment (which Cygwin duplicates anyway for the
Win32 PostgreSQL server) for running the PostgreSQL server. Get VMWare and run
Win9x in a window on your Linux partition to test Win9x apps if you must run
Win9x.Or, port Cygwin to Win9x so that PostgreSQL can run on Win9x.
CygWin does run on Windows 9x, doesn't it? Or at least it used to!
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.chapelperilous.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello. Jim Rockford's machine, this is Larry Doheny's machine. Will you
please have your master call my master at his convenience? Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
-- "The Rockford Files"
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
mySQL even does OS/2. Really.But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2).
Brett W. McCoyYes. How much money has to be paid to run postgreSQL on Win95? Is it
comparable in cost to get support for that platform?
Can PostgreSQL run on Win9x with CygWin32?
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.chapelperilous.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello. Jim Rockford's machine, this is Larry Doheny's machine. Will you
please have your master call my master at his convenience? Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
-- "The Rockford Files"
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
mySQL even does OS/2. Really.But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2).
And, I seem to recall someone did an OS/2 binary for PostgreSQL ...
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
"Brett W. McCoy" wrote:
MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data
or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and
for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrity
or supprto for views. But beyond that, you really need something bigger
like Postgres (for a big site with a small budget) or Oracle (for a huge
site with a huger budget).Have a db comparison toy. Lots of fun.
And, sadly, totally inaccurate *sigh* We've been working with them since
the beginning of time to get them to fix their various benchmarks for
accuracy ... we just recently had a long thread on it where one of the
guys workign witht the MySQL camp was going to push for changes ... but
even then, i believe taht there will be a helluva-lot of discrepencies :(
