Re: More grist for the PostgreSQL vs MySQL mill

I'd say fine, but why discuss the flaws of MySQL on a PostgreSQL list?
If you want to correct it, why not put that flaw on a MySQL list. And
yes, I agree, there is a difference between pointing out a legitimate
flaw and simply bashing for bashing's sake.

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> John Meyer wrote:
>> What I think bothers me is this whole concept that if PostgreSQL is to
>> flourish, MySQL has to be beaten down. Folks, both products are free,
>> both can be used in the same shop (maybe not on the same computer if
>> your running them in production). Putting down MySQL will not make
>> PostgreSQL any better, or vice versa.
>
> It isn't that simple. There are many on this list that feel that MySQL
> does it *wrong* and frankly uses their marketing prowess to make
> themselves out to be something they are not. The point below is
> extremely valid. MySQL sucks at subselects.
>
> So what is the problem?
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "Michael Nolan" <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> select count(*) from memmast where memid in (select plr_rated_memid from
>>>> tnmt_plr where plr_eventid in ('200607163681');
>>>> This query takes about a second on PostgreSQL but takes OVER SEVEN MINUTES
>>>> on MySQL!
>>> Yeah, and we probably would have sucked about as badly before 7.4 or so.
>>> There's a long way from "having subselects" to being able to optimize
>>> them decently. AFAIK mysql is still at the "we've got subselects!"
>>> stage ...
>>>
>>> regards, tom lane
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
>> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>>
>
>