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.
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 |