|From:||Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>|
|To:||Erik Jones <ejones(at)engineyard(dot)com>, 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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
At 12:05 AM 3/18/2009, Erik Jones wrote:
>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
>>concurrent load, particularly concurrent activity by readers and
>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 ;)
Interesting, didn't know that.
But that's what I don't like about MySQL.
On the "brochure" they've got all the ticks on the feature
checkboxes. So the Bosses and CxOs think it's great.
But then you find out (often the hard way) that many star features
are mutually incompatible.
|Next Message||Lincoln Yeoh||2009-03-18 07:33:14||Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data|
|Previous Message||Christophe||2009-03-18 05:34:13||Re: [GENERAL] Re: Video from the 2009-03-11 SFPUG talk on Unison, by Reese Hart|
|Next Message||Simon Riggs||2009-03-18 07:27:11||Re: PostgreSql with or without Plus?|
|Previous Message||Simon Riggs||2009-03-18 07:15:51||Re: Question about Warm Standby|