Mysql vs. Postgresql

[CKnight]

I heard about this a little while back. Didn't get around to trying it. From your experience, why should I choose this over MSSQL for example?

[Kbee]

[quote author=CKnight link=board=8;threadid=28;start=0#109 date=1027083362]
I heard about this a little while back. Didn't get around to trying it. From your experience, why should I choose this over MSSQL for example?
[/quote]

Are you refering to Postgresql or ADS, sorry but that is the dissadvantage of a non threaded Mailing list.
;D

[CKnight]

ADS

[Chris]

[quote author=Kbee link=board=8;threadid=28;start=0#112 date=1027086039]
Are you refering to Postgresql or ADS, sorry but that is the dissadvantage of a non threaded Mailing list.
;D
[/quote]
Yes I will agree that this is one of the disadvantages of a non-threaded discussion forum, :-\ however this can be easily overcome by using the quoting feature . I've found that threaded discussion forums can get very hard to navigate due to the threads that spin off in different directions.

[RobyG]

why should I choose this over MSSQL for example?

Go to www.advantagedatabase.com and go to benchmarks. This will indicate why we choose ADS over other databases. One of the major things is the cost. MSSQL is far more expensive than ADS. ADS can handle hundreds of concurrent users and scales very well. Extended Systems also boasts that you do not need an DB administrator for ADS. There will be no database corruption.

[Kbee]

Extended Systems also boasts that you do not need an DB administrator for ADS. There will be no database corruption.

The only two ways i know that someone can say that there is no DB corruption is that :-

1) They address a "raw" device, therefore not having to deal with the various filesystem locking issues that arise. Since it would only have access to a raw device, the DB would not have to worry about calling fsync() to write it's data or waiting for the OS , thereby circumventing
the VFS altogether. This what Oracle and Sybase do on Linux,IRIX,AIX and Solaris. However recent benchmarks suggest that the theoretical speed advantage is not there, just the write assurance.

2) The other method a DB will assure proper writing of data is to call fsync() after every INSERT. This is a big performance penality that we had to deal with till we upgraded from postgresql 7.0 to 7.1.x (and 7.2.x).This does not circumvent the filesystem, and depending on amount of system IO, and kernel version, the write (instead of flushing to disk) will enter the device_queue(like another buffer).

However this latter method is less reliable and while it will tell the application that the write is done (and database transaction is "committed&quot, because it is scheduled, the system could possibly crash leaving the table write incomplete (corruption).However since most DB applications run at at high priority, this is better than nothing. IIRC windows2k/NT did not support assured writes via raw devices. Windows of cource may have ways of doing dirty_buffer flush scheduling that i don't know of.
-Kurt
;D

[Kbee]

Hey Rob,
      You may wany to check this site,
http://pgadmin.postgresql.org/pgadmin2.php?ContentID=16
and since a picture is worth a thousand words :-
http://pgadmin.postgresql.org/pgadmin2.php?ContentID=20

[Kbee]

For The adventurous who wish to try running Postgresql (a very full-featured RDMS) instead of Mysql , here are some scripts and links to convert your backend DB , you may want to read the first link to get a feel as to just why I prefer postgresql :-) ::-
http://www.designharbor.org/Coding/o...mp;page=1&
http://www.xach.com/aolserver/mysql-to-postgresql.html
http://ziet.zhitomir.ua./~fonin/code/my2pg.pl
http://65.108.58.129/programs/mysqlp...es-0.92.tar.gz
-Kurt