I agree. Its very important not to look at speed only. Paradox blows away
just about anything else on a desktop platform, with small to medium size
databases. But it has none of the features that are needed to make it a
robust business-end solution.

When I first made the switch from Paradox to Interbase, I could not believe
how SLOW IB was. I have since learned, that in the big picture, IB is far
faster, and infinitely more reliable than Paradox. I suspect the same is
true with MySQL.

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Anderson" <john@...>
To: <IBDI@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: [IBDI] MySQL Vs PostgreSQL Vs IB


> About a year ago, my company decided to have a look at MySQL because the
> linux platform and system level apps (like Apache, QMail, Hylafax. etc)
have
> proven to be extremely solid (and have saved me from the heart attach I
was
> certainly dure from trying to get their MS counterparts to cooperate!)
>
> On begining our research, we expected to find a reliable, feature rich
> database that we could use on the internet. As we are a small company, not
> looking for millions of hits per day, we were not entirely concerned with
> the speed, as long as it was reasonable. What we found was an engine that
> was fast, but was almost entirely lacking of the features what would
qualify
> it as a serious database product (no transactions, poor locking, no
> referential integrety)
>
> I am glad to see that this article confirms our findings, but am confused
> that after concluding that the products could not be compared, it ended in
a
> comparison that MySQL would always win.
>
> John Anderson.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Shrimpton" <phil@...>
> To: <IBDI@egroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 7:31 PM
> Subject: [IBDI] MySQL Vs PostgreSQL Vs IB
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > (Yet another link, sorry <g>)
> >
> > ----
> > PC Week Labs cautions that MySQL shouldn't be compared with higher-end
> > databases, such as InterBase or PostgreSQL. It's a fundamentally
different
> > product with different design goals.
> > ----
> > We did run just an online transaction processing single-read test with a
> > single user. MySQL really smoked, clocking 649 transactions per second,
a
> > result that's about four times faster than InterBase's throughput and
more
> > than 10 times faster than PostgreSQL's throughput at the same user load
> and
> > workload.
> > -----
> >
> > To me that is
> >
> > MySQL = 649 Transactions per second
> > Interbase = 162.25 tps
> > PostgreSQL = 64.9 tps
> >
> >
http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/linux/news/0,6423,2436155,00.html
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Community email addresses:
> > Post message: IBDI@onelist.com
> > Subscribe: IBDI-subscribe@onelist.com
> > Unsubscribe: IBDI-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> > List owner: IBDI-owner@onelist.com
> >
> > Shortcut URL to this page:
> > http://www.onelist.com/community/IBDI
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: IBDI@onelist.com
> Subscribe: IBDI-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: IBDI-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: IBDI-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/IBDI
>
>