Les Mikesell wrote: > Christopher Chan wrote: >> >>> Heck, I see lots of circles where they wouldn't trust mysql for an >>> enterprise application so it seems clear that you are not talking about >>> stability or performance but rather familiarity and the amount of trust >>> you have in what you know. >> >> Let's see, mysql crashes (elcheapo hardware, happens once in a while) >> but tables containing hundreds of thousands of rows survive intact on >> reboot. > > Mysql is OK if you don't really need a relational database - > particularly if you can put everything in a single table at least for > the frequent queries. Which is why I put 'simple table environment' in my comment. > >> Could you do that with postgresql? Nah. > > I don't recall ever having a problem with postgresql. I guess the latest versions are more crash resilient. But still no builtin replication. > >> Did I mention you can just copy myisam files to another box and even >> if it has another OS so long as they are on the same cpu platform and >> use it without trouble? > > Don't see why that would be a problem for postgresql either as long as > the database wasn't running when you copied the file and the posgresql > revs were similar. For postgresql, you have to copy everything. For mysql, you can do individual tables if you are using myisam tables. > >> I guess I should try to make a test against openldap/fedoraDS and see >> how they fare. > > Even though I posted those performance benchmarks, I'd want to do some > serious testing before trusting it. I've had my share of problems with > things based on Berkeley DB too, but perhaps those problems are fixed now. > If I do it, it would be just for my interest only as I no longer work for that service provider.