Re: MySQL vs PostgreSQL.

On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 08:20, Antti Haapala wrote:
> Quoted from one page
> > Because we couldn't get vacuum() to work reliable with PostgreSQL 7.1.1,

I have little respect for the MySQL advocacy guys. They purposely
spread misinformation. They always compare their leading edge alpha
software against Postgres' year+ old stable versions. In some cases,
I've seen them compare their alpha (4.x) software against 7.0. Very sad
that these people can't even attempt to be honest.

In the case above, since they are comparing 4.x, they should be
comparing it to 7.x at least. It's also very sad that their testers
don't seem to even understand something as simple as cron. If they
can't understand something as simple as cron, I fear any conclusions
they may arrive at throughout their testing (destined to be
incorrect/invalid).

> MySQL supports data compression between front and back ends. This could be
> easily implemented, or is it already supported?

Mammoth has such a feature...or at least it's been in development for a
while. If I understood them correctly, it will be donated back to core
sometime in the 7.5 or 7.7 series. Last I heard, their results were
absolutely wonderful.

>
> I think all the other statements were misleading in the sense, that they
> compared their newest product with PostgreSQL 7.1.1.

Ya, historically, they go out of their way to ensure unfair
comparisons. I have no respect for them.

>
> They could be provided one... ;-)

In other words, they need a list of features that they can one day hope
to add to MySQL.

>
> > Upgrading MySQL Server is painless. When you are upgrading MySQL Server,
> > you don't need to dump/restore your data, as you have to do with most
> > PostgreSQL upgrades.
>
> Ok... this is true, but not so hard - yesterday I installed 7.3b2 onto my
> linux box.
>
> Of course PostgreSQL isn't yet as fast as it could be. ;)
>

I consider this par for the course. This is something I've had to do
with Sybase, Oracle and MSSQL.

Greg