| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Kaarel <kaarel(at)future(dot)ee>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Which database part 2 |
| Date: | 2003-06-13 21:22:21 |
| Message-ID: | 200306131422.21153.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Sean,
> PostgreSQL, on the other hand, has been a rock. The _only_ time I've
> had a problem with PostgreSQL is when I had a few errant applications
> leaving transactions open causing queries to build up until it reaches
> its max connection limit. I can't emphasize the stableness of
> PostgreSQL compared to MySQL: the difference is non-trivial and the
> difference is much greater than 0.5% difference in uptime.
*sigh* One of my clients did extensive reliability testing for PostgreSQL.
The results were really, really encouraging ... but I can't report them due
to an airtight NDA.
> > How about a sum up:
> > PostgreSQL is the DBA's database.
> > MySQL is the web designer's database.
>
> I wouldn't be so kind as to describe MySQL that way. I'd sum it up as
> closer to MySQL users are willing to buy into the hype (MySQL spends a
> lot of effort in hyping/promoting their DB, PostgreSQL doesn't) and
> don't do their due diligence to investigate other DB's.
I've personally found MySQL to be idea for one type of client: the type that
doesn't have a DBA or skilled tech and doesn't intend to hire one. MySQL is
good for a certain amount of idiot-proofing in that regard. Of course, I
also recommend Filemaker for the same clients, so that's grounds for
comparison.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-06-13 21:38:10 | Re: [HACKERS] SAP and MySQL ... [and Benchmark] |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2003-06-13 21:16:52 | Re: [HACKERS] SAP and MySQL ... [and Benchmark] |