| From: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, neyinagho(at)yahoo(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Thesis on PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2004-09-04 13:24:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20040904092404.135b082e.darcy@druid.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:11:54 -0500
"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> wrote:
> > I'm not aware of any generally accepted definitions of generations
> > of > > database management systems.
>
> Nor am I, but I'd say MySQL would be at least 2 if not 3 or 4
> generations behind PostgreSQL if there was such a thing :). PostgreSQL
> would also be a generation or two behind Oracle.
Bzzzt! Do you work in Oracle's marketing department? PostgreSQL is not
a generation behind Oracle by any reasonable definition. We may lack
some features that they have but they lack some features we have. You
need to do some constructive defining to put one ahead of the other.
The only "generation" differentiation I have ever heard about in general
use was based on the language used to talk to the database. In that
sense PostgreSQL is 3GL (SQL) and plpgsql might be 4GL. Progress is a
4GL. I'm not sure that's a feature though.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2004-09-04 14:35:53 | huge execution time difference with almost same plan |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2004-09-04 13:07:38 | Re: Developers page is down |