Re: Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project

From: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>
To: "Gauthier, Dave" <dave(dot)gauthier(at)intel(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project
Date: 2009-12-17 18:38:19
Message-ID: 4B2A7A9B.8010709@hogranch.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Gauthier, Dave wrote:
>
> 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, 3^rd 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... ?
>

let me just say this one word about that.

ORACLE

i think its a pretty safe assumption that Oracle will not be good for MySQL.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-12-17 18:40:10 Re: Trigger function language
Previous Message Vincenzo Romano 2009-12-17 18:31:10 Trigger function language