[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PAM on OpenBSD
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: PAM on OpenBSD
- From: Patrick Giagnocavo <patrick_(_at_)_zill_(_dot_)_net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:11:31 -0400
- Reply-to: patrick_(_at_)_zill_(_dot_)_net
Generic Player wrote:
> > MySQL gets a loot of words, but as I see it on most technical grounds
> > PostgreSQL is better, soon MySQL might get some of the stuffe that
> > PostgreSQL has hade for a long time... But MySQL should do the work.
> Why do people have to regurgitate crap they heard somewhere, regardless
> of wether or not they even understand it, much less wether or not its
> true? Mysql is a significantly better choice over postgres for this
> application. Not only will it perform much better, but you won't have
> to worry about corrupt indexes, or having to vaccuum the database all
> the time.
You quite obviously don't have real-world experience with the two.
MySQL doesn't have the stability that PG does. I know this from
real-world usage. Plus it is slower than PG under heavy load; slower
for doing updates or writes to the data; and has less functionality in
terms of the SQL language (doesn't have subselects, transactions, etc.).