Subject: Re: Decide between Postgresql and Mysql (help of
From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
To: PFC <lists@peufeu.com>
Cc: Marcos <mjs_ops@gmx.net>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <op.s642dpyecigqcu@apollo13>
References: <1143559902.1241.16.camel@servidor>
	<1143572392.3625.79.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
	<op.s642dpyecigqcu@apollo13>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1143575445.3625.87.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:50:45 -0600

On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 13:42, PFC wrote:
> > This is as much about the code in front of the database as the database
> > itself.  You'll want to use an architecture that supports pooled
> > connections (java, php under lighttpd, etc...) and you'll want to look
> 
> 	Well, anybody who uses PHP and cares about performance is already using  
> lighttpd, no ?
> 
> > MySQL and PostgreSQL can handle fairly heavy parallel loads.
> 
> 	I'll only speak about MyISAM. MySQL == MyISAM. InnoDB is useless : if you  
> want transactions, use postgres.

I agree with most of what you posted, but I'm not quite sure what you
meant here.

Innodb in and of itself is a fairly decent MVCC implementation, with, as
usual, some limitations (it's rollback performance is HORRIFICLY bad). 
What really makes innodb useless to me is that there's no real support
for proper operation by MySQL itself.  If you could force MySQL to only
use innodb tables, and to NEVER do the wrong things syntactically, it
would be ok.  But there are thousands of foot-guns in the MySQL - Innodb
combination waiting to take off your toes.  Too many to count really. 
To me, that's what makes innodb so useless, the way MySQL fails to
integrate well with it.