on Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 07:18:20PM +0100, martin f krafft (madduck@madduck.net) wrote:
> hi,
> *PLEASE DON'T MAKE THIS INTO A FLAME WAR*
> if you are taking anything personal, please don't reply...
>
> i have always used postgresql for everything. i don't really know why,
> but i know that it's a pretty scalable, high-performance database
> server that is secure and powerful.
>
> a client of one of my servers has recently requested mysql. i need
> postgres, so i'd install mysql in parallel, but i first would like to
> know about the negative aspects. from what i remember, mysql isn't a
> true database, and security isn't one of it's virtues.
>
> could you shine some light on these and other aspects, please?
The usual criticism of MySQL is that it is not ACID. This is an acronym
to define functions some people feel should be part of an RDBMS:
- Atomicity: transactions either complete, or don't. There's no "in
between, wups we almost made it". Or, as Yoda might put it, "there
is no try".
- Consistency: database state changes are from one valid state to
another. You can't "orphan" data by deleting references without
modifying the value itself.
- Isolation: the results of a transaction don't affect other
transactions until the transaction is cokmmitted.
- Durability: once committed, transaction results are premanent.
This abstracted from a (somewhat biased) page:
http://openacs.org/philosophy/why-not-mysql.html
For quick, temporary, storage, MySQL may be a fit. For robust database
use, it's probably not advisable.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free
We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
Attachment:
pgpgFXpsTAlbh.pgp
Description: PGP signature