On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 13:41 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote: > JohnS wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 08:19 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote: > >> Are complicated relationships being stored in postgresql and not in > >> mysql? I do not know how things are now but mysql has a history of only > >> being good for simple selects. > > > > Selects can get very upity for mysql as in "VIEWS". They can do Concat, > > Inner Join and Outter among many more things. VIEW myview as SELECT can > > do some very very logical calcs and predictions. I promise it is not > > just for simple selects. > > > > By 'being good only for simple selects' I meant performance wise. Which > is what this thread is all about - performance. Sure you can make > complicated queries on mysql but compared to postgresql they would take > quite some time. Again, this is based on stuff in the past. Maybe mysql > has improved now. Sure, I knew what you meant, but we gonna Bang Heads on your definition of simple selects. I can't compare performance to postgresql but I am willing to bet that mysql can do alot more. Doing something like a "Breadth First" or "Depth First" logical operation, it is sad for me to even say MySQL is faster in that area with predictions than MSSQL. Having said that I really love mssql and sqlce. Now we getting OT. Great things started to happen with mysql @ version 5 >. Now it's just probally going to wither away. Who really knows? > I am just happy that more stuff started supporting postgresql before the > Sun buyout. They would have had some time to mature instead of a frantic > 'we need to add/convert to postgresql just in case'. But I will still go > for mysql with connection caching if it is just a simple table lookup > that needs to be remotely querable.