Article on the future of Python

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

On 09/27/2012 10:37 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:>[...]
> * MySQL is designed for dynamic web sites, with lots of reading and
> not too much writing. Its row and table locking system is pretty
> rudimentary, and it's quite easy for performance to suffer really
> badly if you don't think about it. But if your needs are simple, MySQL
> is probably enough. PostgreSQL uses MVCC to avoid locks in many cases.
> You can happily read from a row while it's being updated; you'll be
> unaware of the update until it's committed.

MVCC comes with a cost though, as anyone who has ever needed
to do a SELECT COUNT(*) on a large Postgresql table knows.

>[...]
> * Both engines have good support in popular languages, including
> (dragging this back on topic, kicking and screaming) Python.

Maybe things are different now but a few years ago I was trying 
to choose between Postgresql and Mysql about the time Python
2.4 (I think) was released.  After waiting for over a year for
the Python mysql dbi module to be released for the then current
version of Python (I needed a binary for Windows) I finally 
gave up and decided to go with Postgresql (the psycopg2 module
was available a very short time after the new Python was.)