Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PostgreSQL <> MySQL: missing the point?

From: Alexey Borzov <borz_off(at)cs(dot)msu(dot)su>
To: Michael Pohl <pgsql(at)newtopia(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL <> MySQL: missing the point?
Date: 2003-09-15 14:42:47
Message-ID: 3F65CFE7.80902@cs.msu.su (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
Hi!

Michael Pohl wrote:
>>There are 2 sorts of people using MySQL:
>>1) Those who know several RDBMSs and use it only when it is the best 
>>tool for the job (read-only web DB, storing logs, etc)
>>2) Those who know only MySQL and think that it is the Ultimate Solution 
>>for Everything.
> 
> 3) Programmers (read: not db experts) who started with MySQL by default or
> by recommendation, but who would be persuaded by an objective, non-FUD
> comparison to a more capable free RDBMS.
> 
> This is the category I fell into three years ago.  Ian's bullet list would
> have saved me a lot of research back then.

You've got a point here.
But I must admit that I've seen few people falling into this category, 
much less than 2). Besides, I think this bullet list is a Good Idea, 
just not stand-alone but inside a propaganda framework.

> As a side note, I appreciate the PgSQL community's apparent commitment to
> avoid both FUD and overstatement of PgSQL's capabilities.

If you look closely at my list, it has no overstatements. It has no 
false statements either, everything can be backed up by appropriate links.

As for the FUD, its main goal is to point some obvious things:
1) MySQL is not exactly Free Software
2) While missing features do get implemented, they may take some time to 
wait for: http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/msg.php3?msg_id=1061364&list=194
3) Data integrity is good. You can get fired if you f*ck up your data.
4) Speed is important, but in *your* application, not in some suspicious 
benchmarks (and understand why they are suspicious).
5) You can save your valuable time if you use advanced features instead 
of work around lack of them.

Consider this FUD a "wake up" call for those whose only database-related 
reading is MySQL manual.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Michael PohlDate: 2003-09-15 16:05:24
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL <> MySQL: missing the point?
Previous:From: Michael PohlDate: 2003-09-15 13:47:07
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL <> MySQL: missing the point?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group