Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0

On 10/28/06, Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith(at)pooteeweet(dot)org> wrote:
>
> The problem is that MySQL has gotten to many case studies with press
> coverage, that people start to think that MySQL is the better database
> product regardless if you have a DBA or not. And this is something that
> can only be countered with similar press coverage. Like every web
> developer needs to know that SourceForge runs on PostgreSQL eventhough
> they could be running on DB2 if they wanted to.

Regardless of how large scale Web 2.0 sites started using databases, by the
time they get to that scale and are giving presentations at OSCON, they are
using InnoDB and recommending it. They also recommend MyISAM for specific
cases where integrity isn't needed as much giving the impression MySQL is
more flexible, offering you integrity when you need it and additional speed
when you don't. Because these sites are talking about how they scaled, there
is simply more information on using MySQL in those situations in the wild
than Pg. For example, LiveJournal talks about how they use a multi-master
MySQL configuration, composite primary keys, clustering user data based on
composite PK and compsite key vs. GUID size. I think it would be great for
Pg DBAs at high profile sites to discuss similar things they did to scale
Pg, even if they didn't have to do anything to that extent (so people know
it can scale w/o additional effort). For new sites just starting, MySQL may
seem safer because there is simply more information available. The Apress
"Pro MySQL" book also exists now for those that wish to tune their MySQL
databases more.

So perhaps the issue isn't comparing against MySQL directly but showing that
Pg is used and how it is used in situations where only MySQL typically gets
press. However, for a Sourceforge presentation, I think it would be nice if
they at least briefly mentioned why they did not choose MySQL because both
are OSS and they are an OSS shop.

--
John Wang
http://www.dev411.com/blog/