timschmidt at gmail.com
Sun May 28 14:54:32 EDT 2006
Yeah, managing MySQL is pretty easy... the most I've ever needed is
some tweaking to /etc/my.cnf. PHPMyadmin makes various tasks even
I guess what I was trying to point out is that, with the exception of
the outliers (top and bottom few percent - maybe less), MySQL (or
Postgres for that matter) can pretty easily work for any database.
And although I'm reasonably sure you could implement something like
the NSA's database of all our calling patterns in MySQL, Oracle is
probably a little bit snappier about it.
On 5/28/06, Bill Littlejohn <billl at mtd-inc.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I know MySQL can handle some big tasks, my statement was more
> about manageability.
> If your a small shop with one guy doing everything your gonna use what
> is easy to implement and/or cheap.
> With our DB needs mostly being met by Access 2003, the only need for a
> DB server is to support eGroupware.
> I think it's actually a pretty good statement about MySQL, that the
> one-man-IT-dept. can use it and call it easy, and Wikipedia can use it
> to handle 8.4Gb. The truth be told, I wouldn't shy away from MySQL if
> our needs grow to require a business critical DB backend. I would
> definetely make sure I had good support for it though, but that goes for
> Tim Schmidt wrote:
> > Damn. Forgot the link:
> > On 5/27/06, Tim Schmidt <timschmidt at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/26/06, Bill Littlejohn <billl at mtd-inc.com> wrote:
> >>> We're not big enough to use Oracle, or in fact any DBS bigger than MSDE
> >>> or MySQL.
> >> So... nothing bigger than the 8.4Gb Wikipedia is managing?
> >> Good to know.
> >> :)
> >> --tim
> > _______________________________________________
> > grlug mailing list
> > grlug at grlug.org
> > http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
More information about the grlug