Re: [tlug] MySQL vs Oracle

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Doughty <mdoughty@example.com> writes:

    Matt> On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 05:03:14PM +0900, Matt Doughty
    Matt> wrote:

    >> This seems to a be a common myth.  Oracle is more robust than
    >> alot of the free solutions. Especially in the area of
    >> replication/clustering, but there is no evidence to support
    >> this.

Oh, it's quite obvious that Oracle is more _robust_ to data corruption
than MySQL.  And it is likely better than PostgreSQL.

    Matt> large data sets are involved), and more often then not it is
    Matt> slower.

This is a side effect of using transactions.

Note that the page I cite previously has several MySQL users saying
the MySQL is _much slower_ than an ACID, transaction-oriented RDBMS
(Oracle or PostgreSQL) when frequent updates are occurring with fairly
continuous read access, because MySQL has to lock the whole table to
get speed.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
 My nostalgia for Icon makes me forget about any of the bad things.  I don't
have much nostalgia for Perl, so its faults I remember.  Scott Gilbert c.l.py