On Friday 21 January 2005 21:28, Paul wrote: > On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 15:39 -0600, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote: > > I'm beginning to wonder whether PostgresSQL wouldn't be the better > > solution... > > I've thought it is ... the only reason to prefer MySQL in the past has > been better read performance. By every other metric I've felt that > PostgresSQL is a "better" database and have wondered why everybody was > using MySQL for everything. The only reason I can think of is the > "network effect" which is one of the reasons Windows is popular > (everybody knows somebody that knows it). Actually, you guys should be a little nicer to mysql... :-) I have one app where it outperformes everything else I tested - db2, oracle, postgres and sybase - by at least 1 to 10... Reason? The mysql binary pretty much fit into the cache of the cpu... plus the app was read heavy, a area that mysql shines in. Anyway, I would be careful with statements like "x is better than y because it supports feature z" - that's not a "better" its a "more fitting for...". Yes, Mysql doesn't support some/many features that other database engines have - but there is a large set of appliations where you'll be hard pressed to find something that beats mysql. Its simply an issue of selecting the tool that fits best into your environment. Peter.