| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, neyinagho(at)yahoo(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Thesis on PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2004-09-04 21:29:11 |
| Message-ID: | 1094333350.6025.1.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On L, 2004-09-04 at 16:24, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:11:54 -0500
> "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> wrote:
> > > I'm not aware of any generally accepted definitions of generations
> > > of > > database management systems.
> >
> > Nor am I, but I'd say MySQL would be at least 2 if not 3 or 4
> > generations behind PostgreSQL if there was such a thing :). PostgreSQL
> > would also be a generation or two behind Oracle.
>
> Bzzzt! Do you work in Oracle's marketing department? PostgreSQL is not
> a generation behind Oracle by any reasonable definition. We may lack
> some features that they have but they lack some features we have. You
> need to do some constructive defining to put one ahead of the other.
Maybe he means version numbers (MySQL 4.x, Postgres 7.x(soon 8.x),
Oracle 10.x) ?
-----------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2004-09-04 21:42:43 | Re: huge execution time difference with almost same plan |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-09-04 21:27:29 | Re: APR 1.0 released |