__/ [M] on Saturday 14 January 2006 18:17 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [M] on Friday 13 January 2006 22:54 \__
>>> Malware Magnet wrote:
>>>> On 2006-01-13, Roy Culley <rgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Open source scored its latest government takeover, with MySQL AB
>>>>> nabbing a five-year contract with the General Services
>>>>> Administration that will put its open-source database at the
>>>>> fingertips of government customers.
>>>>> As it is, MySQL already hums under thousands of federal, state and
>>>>> local government entities, including Los Alamos National Labs, the
>>>>> U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Geological Survey, NASA and the
>>>>> Department of Defense.
>>>> This is interesting. I'm surprised they're not running with PostgreSQL,
>>>> but it is still a step in the right direction.
>>> In most of the books/articles/whatever that I have read about Php and
>>> backend databases, they seem to invariable mention MySQL and not
>>> PostgreSQL. Any thought why that should be?
>> I occasionally hear that PostgreSQL performs better and is more scalable.
>> In of the new shared server of my Web host, it is even offered as an
>> option, alongside MySQL. it wasn't the case with the older server.
>> It might be just a matter of time until PostgreSQL earns its deserved
>> reputation. I was trying to find benchmarks once, but wasn't successful. I
>> guess people like an SQL database that's *theirs*, not owned by some
>> postgraduate student.
>> In a recent benchmark involving commercial databases and MySQL (not
>> PostgreSQL), MySQL beat Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft.
> Intersting info Roy cheers :-)
> I did a quick Google for Benchmarking PostgreSQL and My SQL and found this:
> Which includes this comment:
> MySQL vs PostgreSQL
> by Marco Schramp (12263) on Monday August 09, @11:35PM (#1755602)
> Many people write web application. These application don't need all the
> extra goodies of a (more or less) complete SQL implementation.
> The big differences are:
> 1) Transaction management
> 2) Stored procedures
> Take for example a "Slashdot" system. This system doesn't require very much
> of the database.
> It doesn't need transactions. Most action is making selects on texts to
> view. After that the
> "transaction" is complete. The second most use option is probably
> submitting a text (such as this). This can be done with a single insert
> command. The last option is updating user settings. This may require
> transaction handling: what happens if the user is "logged in" twice and
> changes his user settings at the same time? This situation is probably
> considered "unlikely" or an "acceptable bug". From this point of view,
> Slashdot is just like many other web-sites: all it requires is speed.
> However, I you try to build a real world financial administration,you
> cannot live with such "acceptable bugs". This requires more, most important
> the two features mentioned above.
> Now the question is whether many organisation would allow such critical
> data to live on PostgreSQL. System administrators are used to Oracle,
> Sybase, Informix etc. These names they trust. PostgreSQL only has become
> reasonably stable in the last 1.5 year and still has to build its name.
> Only a few months ago some critical features (e.g. row-locking) have been
> implemented to make it feasible to make such an administration system. The
> name still has to grow, but has a great potential. After it has done so,
> you will find more comments of people being enthousiastic about PostgreSQL.
> Looks to me as PostgreSQL has still got to make a name for itself, and
> possible lacks (or did lack) some of the features or stability that MySQL
> PostgreSQL is one database I had not heard of before. Another one to throw
> into the melting pot when discussions of back end databases come up at
> work :-).
Excellent. That comment from Slashdot answers a question of mine, for which I
had sought an answer before I wrote a certain item that contains references:
Basically, on a podcast interview with a couple of our lead developers,
PostgreSQL was raised as a good performer. Knowing that I finally have
access to PostgreSQL on the new Web server, I pondered. Feedlounge solved
their scalability issues by migrating from MySQL to PostgreSQL. Also a move
from Apache to LiteSpeed appeared to have entailed some performance boosts
in wordpress.org. WordPress still exclusively supports MySQL. Some of us
wonder what if a PostgreSQL port had been made available. The transition is
not transparent. You see, a blog, much like Slashdot, has immutable content
and expands linearly.
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Signature pending approval"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:35pm up 35 days 1:46, 14 users, load average: 0.54, 0.83, 1.00
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms