[QUESTION?] Squeak & SQL databases
Cees de Groot
cg at cdegroot.com
Thu Feb 1 19:19:17 UTC 2001
kulawik at sim.spk-berlin.de said:
> the mySQL-authors have - of course - heard of transactions: read the
> friendly mysql-manual at
They've heard of it and chose to ignore it for the implementation of their
database. I probably should have used these words right away, because if they
simply wouldn't have heard about transactions, one could still be a bit
lenient on them.
I'm not going to turn this discussion into a this-database-is-better-than-yours
flamewar, but I do know a bit on the topic and they have made a very bad
decision and they are proven wrong by the fact that Postgres outperforms them
especially when scaling up (MVCC is far better than table locking).
At best one could say that MySQL is to Postgres as assembly language to
Smalltalk: probably faster if you know exactly what you are doing, but
maintenance sucks (because of all the necessary manual coding with table
locking and so on) and most people screw up and end up with slow spaghetti.
--
Cees de Groot http://www.cdegroot.com <cg at cdegroot.com>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD 1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|