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

Re: Democracy and organisation : My Opinion

From: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jharris(at)nightstarcorporation(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Democracy and organisation : My Opinion
Date: 2002-06-26 03:33:48
Message-ID: 000d01c21cc2$487c8b30$b77b2344@gemini (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Comparing PGSQL to MySQL is like apples to oranges.  I don't see why one
would want to take a great project and ORDBMS such as PGSQL and make a
desktop version of it.  When a desktop version is completely opposite of
what PGSQL is, a commercial-grade RDBMS.  Sure it lacks some of the areas
when compared to Oracle and SQL Server... but I don't see how the PGSQL team
is going to get as much money as Oracle/Microsoft to develop, perform R&D,
and compete against commercial rivals.  Yet, I have never seen an
open-source database system as good as PGSQL, especially being as it is
developed on a volunteer basis.

As far as MySQL goes, they can have their easy-to-install and manage
"features".  I was on the MySQL-dev team for three months trying to convince
Monty, Sasha, and others that MySQL needed features found in commercial
systems (triggers, stored procs, transactions, constraints, etc.)  They
explicitly and rudely told me that MySQL wasn't developed to perform in
these areas and to go elsewhere.  Ever since then, I've been using PGSQL in
a production basis.  The argument for easy-to-install systems is common with
many MySQL users, and those who don't understand how databases work.  Sure
it would be nice to have the system do complete self-tuning but in reality,
the DBA should know how to make the database perform better under different
situations.  And, as for ease-of-install, I can download the PGSQL package
for my OpenBSD boxes and it works perfectly, same on CYGWIN.  If I want to
tune it, I can.

The objective of a good RDBMS is to allow fast access to data while also
maintaining data integrity (ACID properties).  I personally think that
dumbing-down database systems only causes more problems.  Look at Microsoft
and NT/2K/XP.  Now there are MCSEs all over the place acting like they are
network admins because they can point-and-click to start a IIS service.
Oooh, ahh.  I would rather be on UNIX where I need to know exactly what's
going on.  And, UNIX users don't just jump up and blame the software when
something goes wrong... as often happens with Windows and Access.  The same
follows with many MySQL users I've encountered.  They don't have to do
anything with the system, but consider themselves experts.  With all my
Oracle, SQL Server, and PostgreSQL boxes, I personally tune them to do what
tasks are designated for them.  I think PGSQL, as the project goes, is just
fine as it is.  A little commercial support and marketing could greatly
assist in furthering the usage of PGSQL, true.  If the group agrees that
this would be a good idea, then I would be willing to do this.  I also think
it would be a good idea to get a PostgreSQL foundation or similar non-profit
that could accept donations, etc. to further development.  Don't dumb down
the system and create a limited version just for people that want an
open-source Access... they can use MySQL for that.  Just my rant.


Jonah H. Harris, Chairman/CEO
NightStar Corporation
"One company, one world, one BIG difference!"

In response to


  • Nextgres? at 2002-06-26 06:07:35 from Justin Clift

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2002-06-26 03:36:30
Subject: TPC-C Benchmarks
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-06-26 03:25:55
Subject: Re: Democracy and organisation : let's make a revolution

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group