![]() Joel also said in that podcast that comment would come back to bite him because people would be saying that MySQL was a piece of crap - Joel couldn't get a count of rows back. Which it probably doesn't, so just pick whichever database you like the sound of and go with it better performance can be bought with more RAM and CPU, and more appropriate database design, and clever stored procedure tricks and so on - and all of that is cheaper and easier for random-website-X than agonizing over which to pick, MySQL or PostgreSQL, and specialist tuning from expensive DBAs. It's astonishing how expensive good DBAs are and they are worth every cent. If it really matters, test your application against both." And if you really, really care, you get in two DBAs (one who specializes in each database) and get them to tune the crap out of the databases, and then choose. So if your decision factor is, " which is faster?" Then the answer is "it depends. It goes on to link to a number of performance comparisons, because these things are very. PostgreSQL is relatively slow at low concurrency levels, but scales well with increasing load levels, while providing enough isolation between concurrent accesses to avoid slowdowns at high write/read ratios. On the other hand, it exhibits low scalability with increasing loads and write/read ratios. There's this discussion addressing your "better" questionĪpparently, according to this web page, MySQL is fast when concurrent access levels are low, and when there are many more reads than writes. PostgreSQL is a much more mature product. MySQL is much more commonly provided by web hosts. Software can change rapidly from version to version, so before you go choosing a DBMS based on the advice below, do some research to see if it's still accurate. ![]() That's nearly 11 years ago as of this edit. A note to future readers: The text below was last edited in August 2008.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |