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

Re: Article on MySQL vs. Postgres

From: JanWieck(at)t-online(dot)de (Jan Wieck)
To: PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Article on MySQL vs. Postgres
Date: 2000-07-04 22:39:04
Message-ID: 200007042239.AAA04753@hot.jw.home (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tim Perdue wrote:
> On wednesday or thursday, I'm going to be publishing my article on MySQL
> vs. Postgres on
> Before I do that I want to confirm the major problem I had w/postgres:
> the 8K tuple limit. When trying to import some tables from MySQL,
> postgres kept choking because MySQL has no such limit on the size of a
> row in the database (text fields on MySQL can be multi-megabyte).

    I  just committed the first portion of TOAST. Enabling lztext
    fields to hold multi-megabytes too. But it's not  the  answer
    to  such  big  objects.   I  have plans to add an Oracle like
    large object handling in a future version.

> I actually intended the article to be a win for Postgres, as I've used
> it and had good luck with it for such a long time, but if you look at
> the results below, it seems very positive for MySQL.

    It's never a good plan to have an initial intention which  of
    the  competitors  should  finally  look  good.  It's  visible
    between the lines.

> Performace/Scalability:
> MySQL was About 50-60% faster in real-world web serving, but it crumbles
> under a real load. Postgres on the other hand scaled 3x higher than
> MySQL before it started to crumble on the same machine. Unfortunately,
> Postgres would probably still lose on a high-traffic website because
> MySQL can crank out the pages so much faster, number of concurrent
> connections is hard to compare. MySQL also seems to make better use of
> multiple-processor machines like the quad-xeon I tested on. Postgres
> never saturated all 4 processors as MySQL did.

    The  question  in  this  case  is  "what  is  real-world  web
    serving"?  To  spit  out  static  HTML  pages  loaded  into a
    database? To handle discussion forums like OpenACS with  high
    concurrency and the need for transactions?

    Web  applications  differ  in  database  usage as much as any
    other type of application. From huge amounts of static, never
    changing   data   to   complex   data  structures  with  many
    dependencies constantly in motion.   There  is  no  such  one
    "real world web scenario".

> Tools:
> MySQL has some nice admin tools that allow you to watch individual
> connections and queries as they progress and tools to recover from
> corruption. I haven't seem any similar tools for postgres.

    Yepp, we need alot more nice tools.

> Long-term stability:
> Postgres is undoubtably the long-run winner in stability, whereas MySQL
> will freak out or die when left running for more than a month at a time.
> But if you ever do have a problem with postgres, you generally have to
> nuke the database and recover from a backup, as there are no known tools
> to fix index and database corruption. For a long-running postgres
> database, you will occasionally have to drop indexes and re-create them,
> causing downtime.

    Not true IMHO. We had some problems with indices in the past.
    But you can drop/recreate them online and someone  running  a
    query  concurrently  might  just use a sequential scan during
    that time. All other corruptions need  backup  and  recovery.
    WAL is on it's way.

> Usability:
> Both databases use a similar command-line interface. Postgres uses
> "slash commands" to help you view database structures. MySQL uses a more
> memorable, uniform syntax like "Show Tables; Show Databases; Describe
> table_x;" and has better support for altering/changing tables, columns,
> and even databases.

    Since professional application development starts with a data
    design, such "describe" commands  and  "alter"  features  are
    unimportant.  The  more  someone  needs them, the more I know
    that he isn't well educated.

    Productional installations don't need any "alter" command  at
    all.  New  features  are  developed  in the development area,
    tested with real life data in the test environment and  moved
    to  the  production  server  including  a maybe required data
    conversion step during a downtime.

    24/7  scenarios  require  hot  standby,  online  synchronized
    databases  with  hardware takeover. All that is far away from
    our scope by now.

> Features:
> Postgres is undoubtedly far, far more advanced than MySQL is. Postgres
> now supports foreign keys, which can help with referential integrity.
> Postgres supports subselects and better support for creating tables as
> the result of queries. The "transaction" support that MySQL lacks is
> included in Postgres, although you'll never miss it on a website, unless
> you're building something for a bank, and if you're doing that, you'll
> use oracle.

    FOREIGN KEY  doesn't  help  with  referential  integrity,  it
    guarantees  it.   No  application  must ever worry if it will
    find the customer when it has a problem  report.  It  does  a
    SELECT  and  has  it  or  it would've never found the problem
    report first - period.

    And for big, functional expanding web sites, it does so  even
    if  one  of  a  dozen  programmers  forgot  it  once.  If the
    constraint says you cannot delete a customer who payed  until
    end  of  the year, the database won't let you, even if one of
    the 7 CGI programs that can delete customers doesn't check.

    Transactions are the base for any data integrity.  Especially
    in the web environment. Almost every web server I've seen has
    some timeout for CGI, ADP, ASP or whatever they call  it.  As
    soon  as  your  page needs to update more than one table, you
    run the risk of getting aborted  just  between,  leaving  the
    current  activity half done. No matter if a database supports
    FOREIGN KEY. I could live without it,  but  transactions  are

    Fortunately  the MySQL team has changed it's point of view on
    that detail and made some noticeable advantage into that area
    by  integrating BDB. The lates BETA does support transactions
    including rollback as they announced. As far as I see it, the
    integration  of  BDB only buys them transactions, on the cost
    of performance and maintainence efford. So the  need  for  it
    cannot be that small as you think.

    Final notes:

    I  hate  these "MySQL" vs. "PostgreSQL" articles that want to
    say "this one is the better". Each one  has  it's  advantages
    and disadvantages. Both have a long TODO.

    Your  article  might  better  analyze  a  couple of different
    "real-world web services", telling what DB usage profile they
    have  and  then  suggesting which of the two databases is the
    better choice in each case.

    MySQL is a tool and PostgreSQL is a tool. But as  with  other
    tools, a hammer doesn't help if you need a screw driver.

    Please  don't intend to tell anyone either of these databases
    is "the best". You'd do both  communities  a  bad  job.  Help
    people  to  choose the right database for their current needs
    and tell them to reevaluate their choice for the next project
    instead  of blindly staying with the same database. We'll end
    up with alot of customers using both databases  parallel  for
    different needs.

    At  the  bottom  line  both  teams  share the same idea, open
    source. Anyone who pays a license fee is a loss (looser?) for
    all of us.



# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jan WieckDate: 2000-07-04 23:09:15
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
Previous:From: Brian PiatkusDate: 2000-07-04 20:37:21
Subject: Case sensitivity

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group