On Friday, January 3, 2003, at 09:34 PM, Nevin Pratt wrote:

>
>
> Robert Withers wrote:
>
>>
>> On Friday, January 3, 2003, at 07:59 PM, Gavin Scott wrote:
>>
>>>> so which one is better?  nested joins? accessible execution plans?
>>>> hinting?  :)
>>>
>>>
>>> I find PostgreSQL to be a more "serious" database system than MySQL.
>>> Haven't used either with Squeak though, so I don't know if there's a 
>>>  quality
>>> difference from the driver/interface point of view.
>>>
>>
>> yep, I believe I agree with you.  a brief look showed PostgreSQL's  
>> SPI_saveplan and SPI_execp
>> http://www.us.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.0/programmer/spi- 
>> spisaveplan.htm
>> http://www.us.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.0/programmer/spi- 
>> spiexecp.htm
>>
>> I couldn't find the equivalent for MySQL, after a cursory look 
>> through  google.
>>
>> rob
>
>
> I view PostgreSQL as more of a competitor for the likes of, say, 
> Oracle or Sybase, for potential enterprise-wide use, or departmental 
> use.
>
> In contrast, in my opinion MySQL is a competitor for the likes of, 
> say, MS-Access, for, say, embedded applications, vertical market apps, 
> and the like.
>
> Thus, PostgreSQL and MySQL each have their place.
>

That's a useful distinction.  My thought was to ask the db guru at work 
whether it might be a reasonable substitute for oracle in high 
volume/low active connection deployment.  By high-volume, I mean 10 GB 
an hour going in plus the usual assortment of queries.  Partitioning 
and swapping used in abundance.

anyway, nice thread.

cheers,
rob