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

Re: have you seen this?

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: have you seen this?
Date: 2004-05-28 06:47:27
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On 5/27/2004 9:20 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:

> If PostgreSQL became as popular as MS-Access, we'd find people doing
> hideous things with it.  (Or, to be more precise, doing _even more
> hideous_ things ;-).)


The more "idiots" we make believe that we think PostgreSQL is the tool 
for them, the more "idiots" will run this sophisticated crashme (doing 
10,000 CREATE TABLE, DROP TABLE), or they run the 571st variation of 
10,000 INSERT, 10,000 single SELECT over one connection "benchmark". And 
this is not because they are biased, it is because that is the level of 
complexity they are capable of. They don't even think there could be 
something wrong with it, they are that simple. They do not need stored 
procedures because what they do can be done in 5 lines of PHP code. They 
do not need a view because there are only 3 tables in their schema. And 
they do not need MVCC because the 24 site hits per day querying 8 rows 
in their database wouldn't really benefit from it anyway.

However, when they "port" their "applications" to PostgreSQL, it'll 
produce a lot of stupid noise based on ignorance and incompetence, with 
the net result that they "stick to MySQL" anyway.

Nobody please get this wrong, there are a lot of serious people using 
MySQL today who are in need of a strong and powerfull database system. 
That is the reason why MySQL is tacking on features like crazy, features 
they have ignored for way too long. But those people do understand what 
we're talking about when we're doing it on the DBA level. We don't have 
to get down to the database-baby-talk. In fact, I think MySQL AB is 
currently talking exactly in that way, about 5 9's, NDB HA-clustering 
"integrated" into the "MySQL database engine". This is marketing babble 
directed at PHB's, bacause what they really "have" is yet another 
loosely tacked on table handler. Sure, it's linked into the same 
executable, but my understanding of "integration" goes a little further. 
Anyhow, what they do is they talk to "our" customers, the PostgreSQL 
users. They tell those who are waiting for replication and PITR that 
MySQL now has referential integrity, and that the next version will have 
multimaster replication while we are trying to educate dumbass PHP 
coders that transactions are a good thing (tm). That their multimaster 
NDB "sticker" is not integrated with the rest of the nice features like 
foreign keys doesn't matter. They get the foot into the door that way. 
And we all know that PHB's rather ruin a company than admitting to have 
been pulled over the table by a sales guy.


# 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-advocacy by date

Next:From: Dan LangilleDate: 2004-05-28 10:44:39
Subject: Re: have you seen this?
Previous:From: Alexey BorzovDate: 2004-05-28 06:36:25
Subject: Re: have you seen this?

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