Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0
Date: 2006-10-22 00:54:58
Message-ID: 87pscl1865.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

Oops! pgsql(at)007Marketing(dot)com (Shane Ambler) was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> I would further argue that many of the features being pushed for 8.3,
>> recursive queries, bitmap indexes, rollup/group by, updateable queries
>> are the direct result of positioning either against Oracle/MSSQL or
>> MySQL pending feature sets. (Although more toward Oracle/MSSQL certainly).
>
> Wanting to implement features that postgresql users want and ask for
> does not say we are positioning against db's that have implemented
> them before us.

Indeed. It seems to me that the features added to TheirSQL over the
last two years *do* amount to "positioning;" had they not suffered
from the problem of vital underlying technologies being bought out by
other vendors, they would have been in an excellent position to
position as "strong enough to be an SAP R/3 engine."

With stored procs and triggers as further extras, encouraged by other
use cases.

> We may hear about these features and start drooling and running polls
> to see if we can convince every other postgresql user to want them
> included in the next version, but that is because we want the feature
> and think it would be useful not because we want to compete directly
> with Oracle/MSSQL/MySQL.

It appears to me that the system most nearly "positioned against" is
more DB2 than anything else. And I think that's accidental; it's just
that both PostgreSQL and DB2 have a habit of intentional conformance
with SQL standards.

> It is thinking of and implementing features before the others (or just
> doing them better) that gives us something to brag about and use when
> comparing with the other db's.

Ultimately, it's the Nifty Applications that give *real* bragging
rights. What is nice is that PostgreSQL offers some ways of getting
substantial functionality very compactly, which can offer considerable
elegance.

This tends to be difficult with applications designed for another DB,
or for "DB agnosticism;" I have had the recent joy of some involvement
in generating new app code that doesn't have those legacy issues, and
there is considerable elegance to be had in writing a
PostgreSQL-specific application. It feels rather good.
--
(format nil "~S(at)~S" "cbbrowne" "gmail.com")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #161. "I will occasionally vary my daily
routine and not live my life in a rut. For example, I will not always
take a swig of wine or ring a giant gong before finishing off my
enemy." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dawid Kuroczko 2006-10-22 07:54:01 Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2006-10-21 20:48:44 Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0