Re: DBMS Engines and Performance

Does the developer offer any hard evidence for his statement? I mean
like benchmark tests and a side by side list of features?

My impression is that Mysql is set up very narrowly for a typical ISP
offering LAMP and not much else. Once you start going into corporate
installations on private servers, you run into problems with Mysql.
Some of the problems I've have personally are lack of anything that
comes close to pgadmin and really arcane setup/maintenance.

Rich Shepard wrote:
> 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
>