Re: [tlug] MySQL vs Oracle

[Matt Doughty <mdoughty@example.com>]

On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 06:11:17PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "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.

Yes, I knew I would confuse people with that. The this there was 
supposed to be in reference to handling large data sets.  I agree that 
Oracle is most likely the king of the hill as far as data integrity.

>     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.

Is this still the case? I was under the impression MySQL with InnoDB
fixes both the locking issues, and the ACID compliance.

--Matt