Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL vs. Oracle, 2005 report card

From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL vs. Oracle, 2005 report card
Date: 2005-02-16 17:13:03
Message-ID: 42137F1F.6080902@cheapcomplexdevices.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Freitag, 11. Februar 2005 13:37 schrieb Marques Johansson:
>
>>A recent Slashdot thread on MySQL performance
>>(http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/11/038232&from=rss)
>>contains a comment mentioning the following Fermilab report from May 2003:
>
>
> They were apparently testing with PostgreSQL 6.3 at best, so I'd disregard
> this report.
>

Perhaps someone from advocacy could go through their list of issues
and help them. They do seem to be trying to update it, and now
have references to newer features: "Datafile location and a
tablespace implementation as of version 8."

However some of their criteria (savepoints:"no", incremental
online backups:"no", and "access to multiple databases: no"
(what about dblink)) still seem incorrect.

Fermilab did have contact information ("mail comments to:") at the
bottom of the page. Fermilab's a quite highly respected organization,
so I think this page is probably trusted by many.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2005-02-16 17:39:01 Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL vs. Oracle, 2005 report card
Previous Message Marco Colombo 2005-02-16 16:29:13 Re: Lost rows/data corruption?