RE: Postgres, MySQL, and Firebird.
From: Wade Chandler (wchandler_at_redesetgrow.com)
Date: 10/25/03
- Previous message: Michael: "Re: Postgres, MySQL, and Firebird."
- In reply to: Jason Dixon: "Re: Postgres, MySQL, and Firebird."
- Next in thread: Michael: "Re: Postgres, MySQL, and Firebird."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: <redhat-list@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 21:20:57 -0400
Well since I neglected to mention what those features are I guess I
better clarify some things. ;-)
MySQL doesn't support subselects which will come in very handy for many
different tasks. I work in a database centric world most of the time,
and I find subselects to be very valuable. I tried 4.1 and the
subselects performance was terrible (even painful). There is no multi
level subselect.
MySQL doesn't support any type of a stored procedure, so there is no
room for optimization (on that level). At least with Postgres I could
get a way with some UDF or something. Firebird has them.
I have been thinking about going the PostgreSQL way, but have also been
leaning towards Firebird. Firebird does not currently have SMP support,
yet at this moment, that is not really an issue. I wouldn't mind
working on the actual Firebird database to bring it up to speed, or
possibly figure it out more and help with the documentation so is was
more clear. Firebird has some features that really out shine either of
the two. It's threading model seems better than Postgres. It's feature
set is better than MySQL for my needs.
MySQL's licensing is too expensive to use it as an embedded database in
an application. I called to check on it, and it will cost me roughly
400.00 dollars to ship it with a single user standalone application. I
can use Firebird or PostgreSQL much easier. Firebird is easier to embed
than Postgres for sure.
What I was hoping to get from my question was more along the lines of
pitting the 3 against each other without me introducing any bias or
opinion from myself. For some things I have found MySQL to work
wonderfully. Others I have found it to crash a 4CPU 1G server.
Different strokes for different folks. All I really wanted was
information about different peoples experiences if they had a comparison
of either of the two against each other. Thus the vague question.
Thanks for the time,
Wade
-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-admin@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-admin@redhat.com]
On Behalf Of Jason Dixon
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 8:22 PM
To: Red Hat Mailing List
Subject: Re: Postgres, MySQL, and Firebird.
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 20:05, Wade Chandler wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> I'm writing a couple of applications, and I often find that
MySQL
> doesn't have some features I need. I was wondering if anyone knows
> much about Postgres and Firebird Performance compared to MySQL or
> anything else? Any information is greatly appreciated. I'm noticing
> that Postgres says it performs a fork per connection. That doesn't
> sound good at all. So, I guess I'm looking to start a list discussion
> if possible.
Performance can always be tweaked or subsudized (ala hardware). I would
focus on what your feature requirements are. Funny enough, your posting
started out mentioning that MySQL doesn't satisfy the features you need,
yet you neglect to explain _what those features are_.
-- Jason Dixon, RHCE DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
- Previous message: Michael: "Re: Postgres, MySQL, and Firebird."
- In reply to: Jason Dixon: "Re: Postgres, MySQL, and Firebird."
- Next in thread: Michael: "Re: Postgres, MySQL, and Firebird."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
