3 ms·
I hear the points about query optimizers that you and the other repliers have made. (And they are valid points, all. I was just misinformed about MySQL.) I was
by mkn 18y ago
I hear the points about query optimizers that you and the other repliers have made. (And they are valid points, all. I was just misinformed about MySQL.) I was more addressing the points made about database design decisions w/respect to data type choice and their effect on storage requirements and speed. I was wondering, specifically, if it is technically feasible to allow designers to specify 'text' or 'string' at design time, enter in some typical data, and have the engine choose the optimum type subject to its implementation constraints.
That said, it seems like I need to educate myself on the various products, though any prototypes I build will still use MySQL just because of the price point. :o)
- gaius 18y agoCheck out PostgreSQL, Firebird and SAP/DB. I can't think of a single technical or commercial reason to use MySQL.
- newt0311 18y agoCorrection. There is one reason. Its a lot easier to find MySQL devs. than postgres, firebird, or SAP/DB devs even though the latter are a far superior product technically.
- newt0311 18y agoTo give an example on varchars. Postgres never uses more space for varchars than strictly necessary. In fact, it is common to use text columns which are varchars extended to 2 gigabytes. Furthermore, postgres is capable of automatically compressing and decompressing data on the fly, no interaction required. It also has specialized data types for pretty much any task you can imagine and a very robust extension system in case you need to roll your own types.