Re: OT: mysql vs. postgresql
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 12:24:20PM -0600, techlists@techgod.net wrote (0.07):
> I have always used mysql and have never used postgresql, so I'm
> interested in this too. But, What do you mean about MySql not being a
> true Database?
MySQL didn't have transaction or rollback support, which means that it
failed many of the "true database" tests, and was best thought of a a
fast SQL frontend to flat text files (yes, it's data files are not plain
text, but the idea is mostly correct).
The recently added BerkeleyDB backend apparently corrects for some or
all of this, but I have no experience with it, having converted stuff to
Postgres before the BerkeleyDB backend was present.
Personally, the BerkeleyDB backend feels like a big hack, so I
personally prefer Postgres, but I ran mysql for a long time without
problems, too.
M
Reply to: