| From: | Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)007Marketing(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Duncan Garland <duncan(dot)garland(at)ntlworld(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0 |
| Date: | 2006-10-28 00:04:27 |
| Message-ID: | 45429E8B.5010006@007Marketing.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Duncan Garland wrote:
> I do appreciate your replies, they made interesting reading. You all clearly
> believe in your product. However, it is a bit worrying that nobody on the
> Postgres advocacy mailing list could point me towards any authoratative
> material advocating Postgres over MySQL.
May not be overly authoritative but - performance wise there are
benchmarks at tweakers.net - these are hardware performance testing that
use mysql and postgresql to measure what the hardware can do compared to
other hardware.
http://tweakers.net/reviews/646/10
I think a lot of comparisons/advocacy have basically been "I prefer x
because..." with some doing internal performance testing when first
making their choice.
I don't know of any that would compare db's feature to feature like you
might see in a pc mag comparing MS SQL with Oracle.
--
Shane Ambler
pgSQL(at)007Marketing(dot)com
Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Wang | 2006-10-28 00:20:54 | Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0 |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2006-10-27 23:13:44 | Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0 |