Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project

From: "Gauthier, Dave" <dave(dot)gauthier(at)intel(dot)com>
To: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project
Date: 2009-12-16 21:02:04
Message-ID: 482E80323A35A54498B8B70FF2B879800437F84EC3@azsmsx504.amr.corp.intel.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Hi Everyone:

Tomorrow, I will need to present to a group of managers (who know nothing about DBs) why I chose to use PG over MySQL in a project, MySQL being the more popular DB choice with other engineers, and managers fearing things that are "different" (risk). I have a few hard tecnical reasons (check constraint, deferred constraint checking, array data type), but I'm looking for a "it's more reliable" reasons. Again, the audience is managers. Is there an impartial, 3rd party evaluation of the 2 DBs out there that identifies PG as being more reliable? It might mention things like fewer incidences of corrupt tables/indexes, fewer deamon crashes, better recovery after system crashes, etc... ?

Thanks !

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter 2009-12-16 21:15:21 Re: PlPerl scope issue
Previous Message Joshua Tolley 2009-12-16 20:44:57 Re: replication dbs