True. Then maybe the criteria for evaluation is features-vs-speed? I've always said that MySQL is a Ferrari,
Experience (observations really, as I'm not directly involved with it's implementation) of mysql here is that when it comes to inserts, it's more like a wheelbarrow. We have a very basic table with less than a million records, when inserting 20,000 or so records (every couple of weeks), mysql takes several hours to perform the task. As the number of records increase, the time it takes to do the inserts take longer. When the table had much fewer records, the process was significantly quicker. Clearly the number of records in the table is causing the woeful performance. As the number of records to be inserted is about to become much larger, mysql will probably be dumped.
Um, I can outdo that on my Dell laptop. ? Hey, (snaps fingers) I got an idea, maybe you can bring in a specialist to performance tune? (evil grin) Seriously, something has to be really wrong here, because a "basic" table (say, 20 columns, mixed int/char/varchar) with 20,000 records in an insert with mysqlimport should go in minutes, not hours. The only time I've seen something like that (beyond Access) was an Oracle database with a perl load script (no commits, the whole durn thang) and eensy-weensy rollback segments that got splattered to smithereens. But with MySQL I was loading imports of >100,000 records in less than an hour on a dual P-III 333 MHz machine, with the world's slowest RAID controller[TM]. If you want, I can maybe ask a few questions to find out what the problem is, but that's off-topic. Seems like somebody forgot to put some oil in that Ferrari -;^>=