Very Computer

by **J Garci** » Tue, 16 Nov 1999 04:00:00

Oracle vs PostgreSQL vs MySQL vs mSQL : COMPARISON

I would like to know from any users who have had
experience with more than one of the above-mentioned
databases to comment on how these databases compare
with each other?

While I will have to make do with a flat file pipe
delimited database (based on Perl/CGI script) for now,
I am wondering what would be best database application
"upgrade" option should my database file grow in size.

I am particularly interested in hearing if PostgreSQL
is really a stable product or not. Thanks a lot.

=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

by **Brendan Revill** » Wed, 17 Nov 1999 04:00:00

Quote:> Oracle vs PostgreSQL vs MySQL vs mSQL : COMPARISON

> I would like to know from any users who have had
> experience with more than one of the above-mentioned
> databases to comment on how these databases compare
> with each other?

I just discovered this newsgroup and read an earlier thread with the
subject...
"Postgres or MySQL (was: Beginning SQL)"
...which you can probably find with deja.com.

It covered some really interesting points in line with what you're after.

- Brendan

by **Gerald R. Jense** » Wed, 17 Nov 1999 04:00:00

there like MySQL for low-budget work and IBM DB2 for the high-end systems.
They did not like PostgreSQL or mSQL.

Quote:> Oracle vs PostgreSQL vs MySQL vs mSQL : COMPARISON

> I would like to know from any users who have had
> experience with more than one of the above-mentioned
> databases to comment on how these databases compare
> with each other?

> While I will have to make do with a flat file pipe
> delimited database (based on Perl/CGI script) for now,
> I am wondering what would be best database application
> "upgrade" option should my database file grow in size.

> I am particularly interested in hearing if PostgreSQL
> is really a stable product or not. Thanks a lot.

> =====

> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

by **Paul M. Ao** » Thu, 18 Nov 1999 04:00:00

> there like MySQL for low-budget work and IBM DB2 for the high-end systems.
> They did not like PostgreSQL or mSQL.

the article you mention says:

| We eliminated PostgreSQL - a popular open-source
| database-management system - from our testing, because it doesn't
| support NT as a server platform. Instead, PostgreSQL targets the
| Linux database market.

they did not, as you say, seem to like msql much.
--
Paul M. Aoki | Computer Science Division, EECS #1776

| Berkeley, CA 94720-1776 USA

by **Denis Jedi** » Thu, 18 Nov 1999 04:00:00

> they did not, as you say, seem to like msql much.

Of course not. MySQL offers only a poor implementation of ANSI-SQL92 (if
it offers any implementation at all). You cannot define triggers, use
nested queries, use transactions etc. I really dont think that MySQL is
good for any serious databases other than simple Internet-DB's.

Denis Jedig
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me
spread!

by **Michael Buda** » Thu, 18 Nov 1999 04:00:00

> > they did not, as you say, seem to like msql much.

> Of course not. MySQL offers only a poor implementation of ANSI-SQL92 (if
> it offers any implementation at all). You cannot define triggers, use
> nested queries, use transactions etc. I really dont think that MySQL is
> good for any serious databases other than simple Internet-DB's.

er, denis, i think you better read paul's snip once again... it said
'msql', not 'mysql'.
--

by **Denis Jedi** » Thu, 18 Nov 1999 04:00:00

> er, denis, i think you better read paul's snip once again... it said
> 'msql', not 'mysql'.

sorry - message cancelled.

Denis Jedig
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me
spread!