Re: PG vs MySQL

Alex wrote:
> MySQL is still the default database offered by any web hosting company
> and if Postgres wants to become the designated db engine for these
> services or become the worlds no.1 open source db then i think lots of
> things need to be done. Take for example the admin interface (MySQL
> Administrator) for MySQL which is done very professionally or the ease
> of setting up Replication. Postgres still is quite far behind there and
> for normal users that know MySQL best the transition is probably a too
> big step and risk.

But then again, real admin uses CLI :-)

Trust me, administering PG is not at all harder than MySQL, Apache,
Bind, Qmail, FB, etc. The only extra thing I need to do compared to
MySQL or FB is that I need to run VACUUM from time to time, but that's
so easy to do and autovacuum might be the way of the future anyway.

As to usage, PG is also very easy and convenient to use. Want some proofs?

1) PG's command line client is *much better* than MySQL's.

2) There are lots of webhosting provider offering PostgreSQL.

3) API/binding to virtually any language/environment (I don't think I've
seen .NET Data Provider or Parrot binding for MySQL);

4) LIMIT clause (with nicer syntax), autoincrementing column, easy
BLOB/TEXT, full-text search, replication, etc.? You got it.

But of course, if you're looking for other MySQL "conveniences" such as
silently chopping your string, silently converting your column data
type, allowing entering invalid values in your ENUM column, allowing
invalid dates, allowing breaking FK integrity, etc. then PG does not
have those. But I find them scary anyway :-)

--
dave