On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 04:37:39PM -0500, Angelo Bertolli wrote: > > The fundamental difference is licensing. If Windows was open source, I > certainly wouldn't bother disagreeing with them if they specified which > users would benefit more from Windows. And on that issue MySQL wins > because you can have it under the GPL. Postgres is under BSD. (I guess > that's arguable, but we are on a Debian list after all.) > It depends on whether your definition of "freeness" is biased toward developers or end users. Basically, on technical merits, MySQL benefits practically nobody. > > (By the way, you actually get different transactional results based on > what kind of storage you tell MySQL to use. InnoDB is better but slower > than MyISAM. Gee, I wonder if there could be a tradeoff there.) > Yes, because MyISAM is *not* transactional at all. Not just that, but if you have a query/transaction that involves upty-bazillion InnoDB (transactional) tables and only *one* MyISAM table, then the *entire* query/transaction is *not* transactional. > MySQL got the upper hand for having "better" priorities early on, and > now they're enjoying their popularity. It didn't really matter that Yes, they were "fast" when computers were still slow. Unfortunately, many people were willing to give up data integrity in exchange for "fast". Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature