Re: Benchmark

From: PFC <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com>
To: "performance pgsql" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Benchmark
Date: 2005-02-11 18:32:40
Message-ID: opsl1psqdsth1vuj@musicbox
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


> In terms of performance, Oracle is to Postgres as Postgres is to Mysql:
> More
> complexity, more overhead, more layers of abstraction, but in the long
> run it
> pays off when you need it. (Only without the user-friendliness of either
> open-source softwares.)
>

I don't find postgres complex... I find it nice, well-behaved, very easy
to use, very powerful, user-friendly... there are a lot of features but
somehow it's well integrated and makes a coherent set. It also has some
very useful secret passages (like the whole GiST family) which can save
you from some things at which SQL really sucks. It certainly is complex on
the inside but I think the devs have done a very good job at hiding that.

It's also polite : it will say 'I have a function with the name you said
but the parameter types don't match' ; mysql will just say 'syntax error,
RTFM', or insert its favorite value of 0.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-02-11 18:41:17 Re: Benchmark
Previous Message PFC 2005-02-11 18:22:35 Re: Benchmark (slightly off topic but oh well)