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

Re: PG vs MySQL

From: Pierre Didelon <pdidelon(at)cea(dot)fr>
To: David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PG vs MySQL
Date: 2004-03-29 09:42:45
Message-ID: 4067EF95.9040700@cea.fr (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
Hi david and PGSQL lovers,

I think that PGSQL devellopers and users must not be upset
by all the ongoing comparisons between MySQL and PostgreSQL.
This is the direct illustration of the postgresql success,
it gives me the feelings that its like a shameful desire
of MySQL users to come to a more "professional" DB.
It is a "demonstration" of the technical scale in DBMS
Access/MySQL/PostgreSQL (IMHO). Like for every domain in
the common life; if you want to make things better, you need
to do it "harder", but at the same time, depending of your needs,
before trying to do things better (migrating from MySQL to
PostgreSQL) you want to check if the investment is worthwhile.
'cause the last 10% oftently costs 90% of the effort.
So, don't turn the back to people trying to understand
the diff. and simil. between the DBMS, or the pro's and con's.
Explain (as you aleady does) that the 2 systems do not
fullfill the same needs and does not requires the same skill,
like the diff. between Access and MySQL.
Perhaps there is a page on the web which explain that?
I didn't found it, but may be somebody know one!

The probleme is also linked, as can be seen from the amount
of mail on general-psql list, to the fact that MySQL is available
natively on Window (and very easy to install there),
while PostgreSQL not yet, and a lot of people (me included)
are waiting this.

These 2 points explain the wealth of mail on general list and I really
understand that PostgreSQL  devellopers, programmers and exclusive users
could be upset by mail avalanche on this subject. So, apart creating
a mailing list for native window users, it could be of some interest to
create a "MySQL migration" list to clear general list. I must admit that
I am incline to unsuscribe, although it is a nice chanel to stay
informed and continue to learn from other users experiences,
but too much information kills information.

All the best to the postgresql team,
Pierre

PS: I hope that my english is understable, and that I didn't hurt
anybody with misunderstandings or mistakes.




David Garamond wrote:
> Alex wrote:
> 
>> MySQL is still the default database offered by any web hosting company 
>> and if Postgres wants to become the designated db engine for these 
>> services or become the worlds no.1 open source db then i think lots of 
>> things need to be done. Take for example the admin interface (MySQL 
>> Administrator) for MySQL which is done very professionally or the ease 
>> of setting up Replication. Postgres still is quite far behind there 
>> and for normal users that know MySQL best the transition is probably a 
>> too big step and risk.
> 
> 
> But then again, real admin uses CLI :-) 
doing this only 24hours per day ;-)
> 
> Trust me, administering PG is not at all harder than MySQL, Apache, 
> Bind, Qmail, FB, etc. The only extra thing I need to do compared to 
> MySQL or FB is that I need to run VACUUM from time to time, but that's 
> so easy to do and autovacuum might be the way of the future anyway.
> 
> As to usage, PG is also very easy and convenient to use. Want some proofs?
> 
> 1) PG's command line client is *much better* than MySQL's.

Common basic users love window interface, and even more experienced ones
like them because that are (WI) more "self explanatory", give you an easy
way to use all the possibilities of commands, without having to remember
all the tiny tricks hiden everywhere in corners.

> 
> 2) There are lots of webhosting provider offering PostgreSQL.
> 
> 3) API/binding to virtually any language/environment (I don't think I've 
> seen .NET Data Provider or Parrot binding for MySQL);
> 
> 4) LIMIT clause (with nicer syntax), autoincrementing column, easy 
> BLOB/TEXT, full-text search, replication, etc.? You got it.
> 
> 
> But of course, if you're looking for other MySQL "conveniences" such as 
> silently chopping your string, silently converting your column data 
> type, allowing entering invalid values in your ENUM column, allowing 
> invalid dates, allowing breaking FK integrity, etc. then PG does not 
> have those. But I find them scary anyway :-)
> 
These are among the technical advantages of PostgreSQL,
and I experienced somes, introducing weird data in my tables ;-o

-- 
Pierre 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIDELON :@: pdidelon_at_cea.fr        Phone : 33 (0)1 69 08 58 89
CEA SACLAY - Service d'Astrophysique  91191 Gif-Sur-Yvette Cedex
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2004-03-29 10:18:19
Subject: Re: PG vs MySQL
Previous:From: John FabianiDate: 2004-03-29 06:12:40
Subject: need pg2dbf or pg2xbase

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