also sprach Jeffrey W. Baker <jwbaker@acm.org> [2001.12.19.1936 +0100]: > The differences are basically these: postgres has better concurrency, so > selects never block selects, updates block selects on a per-record basis. > In mysql, updates, inserts, and selects all block each other except in the > most trivial cases. Postgres requires a vacuum and vacuum analyze > periodically to maintain performance. mysql does not. Postgres supports > most of ANSI SQL. Mysql supports some of it. Postgres has nice support > for adding new datatypes and stored procedures in practically any language > you choose. i am only replying to this one, but thanks for all the informative answers i have received. in the end, mysql doesn't hurt, and as long as i don't have to use it, or chose it over postgres, having it installed in parallel to a postgres installation won't hurt, will it? -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck 1-800-psych hello, welcome to the psychiatric hotline. if you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 repeatedly.
Attachment:
pgp2difeRuAB4.pgp
Description: PGP signature