Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chris(dot)kings-lynne(at)calorieking(dot)com>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, John DeSoi <desoi(at)pgedit(dot)com>, Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Date: 2006-05-19 01:41:31
Message-ID: 446D224B.8020909@paradise.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> And MySQL is much closer to being a competitor now than they were in
>> 4.1. And feature-wise they'll probably equal PostgreSQL in the next
>> release. Will the features be anywhere near as robust or well thought
>> out? No. But in a heck of a lot of companies that doesn't matter.
>
> Don't forget that they got nested transactions and PITR both before us.
> They will also shortly have really nice partitioning before us...
>
> ...don't underestimate their development speed.
>

Second that. In addition they have (early) in-memory multi-node
clustering and Jim Starkey is writing them a new transactional storage
engine to replace the probably-soon-to-be-license-hampered Innodb...

Cheers

Mark

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2006-05-19 05:28:02 Re: [HACKERS] Toward A Positive Marketing Approach.
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2006-05-19 01:40:40 Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Dilger 2006-05-19 01:49:38 Re: text_position worst case runtime
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2006-05-19 01:40:40 Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?