Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL

LOL, good points!

OTOH, until we fix some of the problems we have been talking about in
the last week, we are kind of BETWEEN mysql and other databases.

Postgres is far better than Mysql, though, not a near cousin.

Steve Crawford wrote:

>On Thursday 18 September 2003 2:45 pm, Scott Holmes wrote:
>
>
>>Andrew L. Gould wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thursday 18 September 2003 04:04 pm, Sean Chittenden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I think the below just about says it all:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.commandprompt.com/images/mammoth_versus_dolphin_500.j
>>>>>pg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>Not exactly the kind of image I'd like to project, especially since
>>I care about dolphins (at least non-iconified dolphins)
>>
>>
>
>More to the point, why is it deemed necessary to equate PostgreSQL
>with MySQL? Constantly doing that creates the image that the two are
>somehow comparable products (and that PostgreSQL has an inferiority
>complex).
>
>BMW might compare its cars to Mercedes or other cars percieved to be
>in the "luxury class" but it would never compare them to Ford or
>Hyundai - to do so would create the impression that BMW and Hyundai
>are in the same class. PostgreSQL should do the same.
>
>I think the much more effective pitch is the dismissive one: sure, you
>can get a lot done with MySQL - it will probably work fine for many
>projects...Oh, but what about true transactions - are you ever going
>to need those? Or bulletproof reliability? Or true MVCC? Have you
>looked into the license restrictions? We just wanted you to know that
>when you run into these issues in MySQL, we'll be here for you.
>
>Meanwhile, if we want to pick a fight we should at least pick one with
>a database in our own class.
>
>Cheers,
>Steve
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>
>
>