From: | Erik Jones <ejones(at)engineyard(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | Juan Pereira <juankarlos(dot)openggd(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
Date: | 2009-03-17 16:05:15 |
Message-ID: | 1245E318-CD58-4B48-A06F-BFE5BFFE1B14@engineyard.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general |
On Mar 17, 2009, at 4:47 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> The question is: Which DBMS do you think is the best for this kind of
>> application? PostgreSQL or MySQL?
>
> As you can imagine, PostgreSQL.
>
> My main reasons are that in a proper transactional environment (ie
> you're not using scary MyISAM tables) Pg is *much* better about
> handling
> concurrent load, particularly concurrent activity by readers and
> writers.
Actually, following this comment it should be noted that if you were
to choose MySQL you'd pretty much be making a decision to *not* be
using transactions at all. The reason for this is that while InnoDB
does support MySQL's geometry data types it does *not* support indexes
on geometry columns, only MyISAM does which does not support
transactions. Call me old fashioned if you like, but I like my data
to have integrity ;)
Erik Jones, Database Administrator
Engine Yard
Support, Scalability, Reliability
866.518.9273 x 260
Location: US/Pacific
IRC: mage2k
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2009-03-17 16:44:48 | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-03-17 15:54:51 | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2009-03-17 16:44:48 | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2009-03-17 15:59:36 | Re: Running Postgresl in a virual machine |