Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data

John Cheng wrote:

>> This is question for Juan, have you asked the MySQL mailing list?

Not yet. Admitting my ignorance in databases, I'm trying to understand all
the concepts discussed in this thread .

Be sure today I will ask the MySQL list.

Thanks

2009/3/17 John Cheng <chonger(dot)cheng(at)gmail(dot)com>

> This is question for Juan, have you asked the MySQL mailing list? What do
> they say about this?
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Erik Jones <ejones(at)engineyard(dot)com> 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 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>>
>
>
>
> --
> - John L Cheng
>