[CentOS] mysql and windows

Peter Arremann loony at loonybin.org
Fri Sep 28 23:52:25 UTC 2007

On Friday 28 September 2007, Miark wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:01:07 +0000, gjgowey at tmo.blackberry.net
> wrote:
> > Mysql is to databases what Lincoln logs are to cinder blocks.
> What open source DB progs do you like--if any?

You shouldn't have asked that question... :) 

When the dust settles at the end of the religious war you just started, you'll 
usually end up with people mostly agreeing on the following points:

* mysql is faster in high volume, mostly read, simple query scenarios. 
Especially if your app can use a query cache, its not even close. pg wins 
when you have much more complex queries or more writes. 

* pg scales higher - I just finished some testing on a 32 core box and it 
scaled almost as well as oracle (oracle got 23 times single core performance, 
pg 21 times). mysql levels off pretty much at 4-8 (depending on workload) - 
larger machines often get slower.This is now changing with falcon though, so 
look out for 5.2... 

* pg allows higher concurrency. If you pull data, then mangle it for a while 
before going back to the DB with the next query, mysql can sometimes become 
dog slow... pg with row versioning allows for higher concurrency. Again, 
falcon fixes a lot of that.

* pg recovers better than mysql. However if recovery fails for some reason, 
finding someone who can salvage at least something, is next to impossible. 

* backup is faster in pg, recover is faster in mysql...

* pg adheres much better to the sql standards than mysql

In the end, this is enough reason for me to go with pg in most cases - and if 
that is too large, sqlite... Between the two, there is little space left for 
mysql in my world. 


More information about the CentOS mailing list