Survey or original article: Which one is more important to get postdoc or tenure-track position? There are two main opinions about originality and contribution of ISI (journals which are indexed and listed in JCR report by Thomson Routers)* survey/review journal articles compared to original articles in ISI journals. Some scientists consider survey papers lacking originality while others think the opposite especially for survey articles presenting the state-of-the-art and research challenges. So, I am wondering, in general, which type of article has the most impact on an applicant's success when applying for a postdoc or tenure track position; survey or original article? 

*It was asked earlier, so it is wise to put its meaning for clarity.
-Certainly having both of them is the best, but among these two which one has more impact.
There's no simple answer to this question, because there are a lot of variables left undefined. I think this is what we can call an example of a "false dichotomy." For instance, consider the following examples from physics:


A first-author "original" publication in a journal such as Physica A might not be as useful as a first-author review paper in Reviews of Modern Physics.
Being third author on a review paper in Reviews of Modern Physics might not be as useful as first author on a paper in Physical Review Letters.
The stage in one's career also makes a difference in some fields: a postdoc might not be asked to do a review in some fields, but might in others. (Tenure-track professors are a separate category in this respect.)


So I think there are a lot of issues to be considered in this process. However, if one is a postdoc, this is also a conversation to have with one's research supervisor. In general, such articles would be written with their involvement and participation.