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

DBMS Engines and Performance

From: Rich Shepard <rshepard(at)appl-ecosys(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: DBMS Engines and Performance
Date: 2007-01-30 19:36:52
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0701301128210.543@salmo.appl-ecosys.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
   I received a response from the development coordinator of an OSS business
application I'd really like to use, but it works only with MySQL. The
two reasons the one interested developer isn't devoting more time to the
port are a lack of priority and paying sponsor.

   However, what puzzles me is this statement: "PostgreSQL has continued to
fall behind other database engines in both performance and features, so I
don't see compelling reason to work on it in my very limited free time."

   While I'm far from being totally in tune with the dbms universe, this
doesn't look accurate to me. I recall from years ago that MySQL was tuned
for speedy reads so that's why it was adopted for so many Web sites. But,
hasn't it been only recently that its features and performance have caught
up with Postgres?

   I don't intend to start a major thread as these issues have come up over
time on this list. But, I would like some response from more knowledgeable
folks on the quoted statement above, just for my own edification.

Thanks,

Rich

-- 
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.               |    The Environmental Permitting
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.        |          Accelerator(TM)
<http://www.appl-ecosys.com>     Voice: 503-667-4517      Fax: 503-667-8863

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Joris DobbelsteenDate: 2007-01-30 19:38:55
Subject: Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE with ORDER BY to avoid row-level deadlock?
Previous:From: Brandon AikenDate: 2007-01-30 19:33:46
Subject: Re: Any Plans for cross database queries on the same server?

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