X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BDF411F6278 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:05:51 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 34281-08 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:05:51 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from moonunit2.moonview.localnet (wsip-68-15-5-150.sd.sd.cox.net [68.15.5.150]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1E4411F6276 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:05:48 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (moonunit3.moonview.localnet [192.168.0.3]) by moonunit2.moonview.localnet (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k2U38RDC029707; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:08:27 -0800 Message-ID: <442B4A06.8060900@modgraph-usa.com> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:01:26 -0800 From: "Craig A. James" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gorshkov CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Decide between Postgresql and Mysql (help of References: <1143559902.1241.16.camel@servidor> <200603291901.59320.listsubscriptions@oghma.on.ca> <442B4138.8030207@modgraph-usa.com> <200603292307.29034.listsubscriptions@oghma.on.ca> In-Reply-To: <200603292307.29034.listsubscriptions@oghma.on.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.105 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105] X-Spam-Score: 0.105 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/598 X-Sequence-Number: 18035 This is off-topic for this group so I'll just give a brief reply; I'm happy to carry on more just between the two of us... Gorshkov wrote: > That being said ..... what *is* the difference between coding a website - > major or otherwise - in an "old-fashioned" compiled language and a > non-compiled language, except for the amount of hoursepower and memory you > require? > > Old-fashioned doesn't mean bad, inappropriate, or inferior. It's just not the > latest-and-greatest, however it's currently defined by the geek fashion > police. Our experience coding web sites with C/C++ versus Perl is about a factor of ten in productivity. We only use C/C++ for CPU-intensive calculations, such as scientific prediction code. Everything else is Perl or Java. I recently re-coded 10,000 lines of C into 650 lines of Perl. Why? String handling, hash tables, and the simplicity of DBD/DBI. And there was no loss of performance, because the app was strictly I/O bound (that is, Postgres was I/O bound). Sure, the old app may not have been optimal, but we're talking about a factor of 15 reduction in lines of code. That's not "geek fashion", it's good engineering. Pick the best tool for the job, and learn how to use it. Craig