Re: strange postgresql x mysql comparison in forrester analyse

2009/10/14 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
>
> I got link on free downloadable document from Microsoft Server.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/itanalyst/docs/06-30-09EnterpriseDatabaseManagementSystems.aspx
>
> Still I though so Forrester analysis are well. I was surprised bad
> informations about PostgreSQL there. An author probably doesn't read
> some about PostgreSQL last 5 years. I thing so we should to warn about
> very bad work of Forrester agency.
>
> Pavel Stehule
>
> p.s. Who use Ingres? I though so this database is dead - and in this
> document I reading, so The best representatives of OSS databases are
> Ingres, MySQL and PostgreSQL.
>

Sounds like a pile of FUD: "PostgreSQL lags behind. PostgreSQL has
some good capabilities across the board but lags in
performance, scalability, administration, application development,
support for disparate data
types, and VLDBs."

They mark Postgres down as having the weakest strategy and weakest
offering. Strangely enough they put Database availability for MSSQL
as the 2nd highest and Postgres as 2nd lowest, despite us having a
history of downtime of our MSSQL servers here (one quite frequently)
and at my previous place of work, and no downtime ever with Postgres.

This made me laugh too: "PostgreSQL: An offering that lags in
enterprise database features and functionality. Although
PostgreSQL offers a good set of basic database features and
functionality, it lags in enterpriseclass
capabilities for availability, security, programmability, and
performance. In the past, Sun
and Fujitsu have supported PostgreSQL — and more recently EnterpriseDB
— but its enterprise
adoption has been slow, although it has the second-largest developer
community after MySQL."

"Issues: Although PostgreSQL has good features and functionality, it
is not a proven enterpriseclass
DBMS to support mission-critical deployments."

Even though there are so many examples to the contrary.

All quite ridiculous, and they're either commenting without doing any
research, or being commissioned to put their commissioner in the right
light. In either case it's horrendously inaccurate and misleading.
The "report" contributes nothing of value.

Thom