If you *really*: a) don't need transactions now and b) won't need transactions ever then MySQL could be fine. However Postgresql is both both dramatically faster and dramatically more stable for most "high load" applications such as you are interested in: http://apachetoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-08-14-008-01-PR-MR-SW As for "easy to use", greater SQL compliance can only be easier than less compliance. Just don't use what you don't need. BTW most people who think they don't need transactions now can't be certain about b) and many are simply wrong about a). It is *much* simpler to install just one DBMS than have to switch or add another later. Checkout: http://openacs.org/philosophy/why-not-mysql.html The above link provides a less standard and more polemical but perhaps also more accurate alternative comparison between MySQL and PostgreSQL from a PostgreSQL perspective. It's quite old now and the reviews above and below give some precise benchmarks. Although SQL applications that are stable under high load and easy to use but do not need transactions certainly do exist - eg read only - they are rather less common than applications that don't need SQL at all or that do need transactions (or both eg using Zope ZODB). Generally life is much harder and much less stable with an SQL application if you cannot rely on the DBMS to maintain database integrity - which is *precisely* what not having "transactions" means. There often isn't all that much point to SQL if you cannot be sure the relationships are *always* what they are supposed to be. Simple DBM files may be all you need for an application that would be suitable for MySQL. By definition, true SQL, and indeed any DBMS *requires* support for transactions. If you *really* don't need transactions then you don't need a DBMS. I recommend careful study of whether you *really* don't need transactions after reading above article, including the discussion of it (which includes plenty of pro MySQL polemics). It isn't called the "acid" test for no reason. MySQL is far less stable than Postgresql under high load: http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20000705.php3?page=2 That was a review favorable to MySQL, subsequently withdrawn by the update below, which confirms that the latest PostgreSQL is faster as well as more stable. http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20001112.php3?page=3 -----Original Message----- From: zope-admin@zope.org [mailto:zope-admin@zope.org]On Behalf Of Donald Braman Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 6:09 AM To: zope@zope.org Subject: [Zope] MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc. Hello! I'm in a situation that I'm sure many are familiar with...choosing between MySQL or PostgreSQL. My main goals are stability under high load and ease of use. I don't need transactions. I know the standard comparison: MySQL is faster, simpler, and more popular, while PostgreSQL is slower but is more fully SQL standards based, handles transactions, etc. Are these generally accurate descriptions? I'm wondering what people who have used either (or both!) think about using these (or other databases) in conjunction with Zope. Are there any special cases where one or the other works better or worse with Zope? Donald Braman donald.braman@yale.edu _______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )