> without knowing the hardware organization & availability of software,
> it's seems strange that you're considering different database systems
> for things that one is perfectly capable of performing. it's a bit of a
> fallacy that MySQL is better for read only database sites. on the low
> end (fewer connections), MySQL might be faster, but you'd have trouble
> buying hardware that was slow enough that you'd notice the difference.
> i've never used MySQL on a heavily loaded web site, but i've heard
> enough about MySQL breaking down to be a bit concerned about that. all
> in all, i'm just not clear on why you're interested in the added
> headache of multiple database systems & copying data between them.
As I said in my first email, it just depends :). I do plan on doing
tests against MySQL and Postgrest to see which would be better for
just serving out dynamic content (read only). Whichever one wins
out will be the one i'm going to use. Personally, I've had no problems
at all with MySQL...I'm looking into postgres because MySQL won't
do the things I need to do on my next product version. And, the
data won't be copied between the 2, MySQL will be dumped to, and thats
it. So there won't really be much headache on that part. When the time
comes, I'll choose. Currently, I'm just planning ahead.
Thanks,
--------------------------------------------------------
| Daryl Chance | I have made this letter longer then |
| Valuedata, LLC | usual because I lacked the time to |
| Memphis, TN | make it shorter. -- Blaise Pascal |
--------------------------------------------------------