Re: Database recommendations?

Carl Lerche
Sat, 24 Feb 2007 00:02:43 -0000

While PostgreSQL is more advanced, I believe that MySQL has better
clustering support. Slony-I seems like it would be ok for a
master-slave(s) setup, but pgcluster doesn''t seem ready for prime
time.. and I believe it adds a 5x overhead.

-carl

On 2/23/07, Philip Nelson
<teamdba-RvFq4O/J5Z7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
>
> Sergey,
>
> The only reason I didn''t mention PostgreSQL is that I''ve
not personally got
> any experience of it (not that I wouldn''t like to, but there are
only so many
> hours in the day ...).
>
> The vibes I get are that if you want Open Source, then PostgreSQL is more
> advanced than MySQL.
>
> As far as the "grandaddy", Oracle may have been first to market
(and suffers
> still for that in some ways, since things done in haste sometimes have
> problems) but the real "daddy of them all" is mainframe DB2 (now
known as DB2
> for z/OS). The experimental precursor to that was System-R, which was built
> on the back of the IBM researchers who invented relational technology.
>
> DB2 for z/OS is 25 years old (since it''s first generally available
release).
>
> Of course, if you want to go for a "real man''s database"
still under active
> development today, you''d have to go for IMS/DB (hierarchical
database).
> Still work with it on a daily basis, and we still run millions of
> transactions per day against it. It was developed as part of the Apollo
> space program in the 60s.
>
> Phil
>
> On Friday 23 February 2007 14:15, Sergey Kuznetsov wrote:
> > You forgot to mention PostgreSQL, that''s the Open Source
Oracle,
> > granddaddy of of many Open Source
> > and Commercial RDBMS :)
> >
> >
> > PS: Even knowing about Interbase off-spring I chose PostgreSQL when I
> > fleed from MySQL.
> >
> > All the Best!
> > Sergey.
> >
> > johnson_d-j9pdmedNgrk@public.gmane.org wrote:
> > > Philip Nelson wrote:
> > >> In many ways, the choice of DBMS comes down to two things -
> > >>
> > >> 1) Experience (folks choose what they know and are
comfortable with)
> > >> 2) Money (how much you are prepared to spend for the product
and
> > >> support)
> > >
> > > Phillip is dead on here.
> > >
> > > I am not a fan of MySQL, but it works well for backing web pages
with
> > > mostly static data.  When the Netfrastructure back end (a rewrite
of
> > > the firebird engine) is mainstream, it will move up at least one
level
> > > in my hierarchy of consideration.
> > >
> > > DB2 and Oracle are good choices because you can vertically scale
the
> > > DBMS into the midrange and  mainframe class systems (off of the
WIntel
> > > platforms), and both are robust with loads that are heavily
> > > transactional.  While both have free and low cost limited
licenses,
> > > they also have a variety of license packages that scale from
> > > vertically handheld to mainframe, and robust clustering options
in the
> > > commodity, midrange, and large systems.  I have found
DB2''s support to
> > > be generally superior to Oracle''s.
> > >
> > > Firebird (my favorite) was originally architected for the Vax
cluster
> > > as a direct competitor for Oracle.  Its "classic"
architecture has
> > > remained constant and a good fallback throughout its 30 year
(more or
> > > less) history.  The latter half of its life time has been focused
on
> > > the commodity systems (WIntel), but there are builds for Windows
CE,
> > > Intel64, AMD64, and PowerPC architectures also, so it scales
> > > vertically at least to the midrange systems.  I have not checked
the
> > > status of Firebird 2, a ground-up rewrite (different from the
> > > NetfraStructure rewrite), recently.  However, it brings
firebird''s
> > > performance in line with MySQL and Postgres,without sacrificing
> > > transactional integrity.
> >
> >
>
> >
>


--
EPA Rating: 3000 Lines of Code / Gallon (of coffee)