| From: | "Gauthier, Dave" <dave(dot)gauthier(at)intel(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project |
| Date: | 2009-12-16 21:02:04 |
| Message-ID: | 482E80323A35A54498B8B70FF2B879800437F84EC3@azsmsx504.amr.corp.intel.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Everyone:
Tomorrow, I will need to present to a group of managers (who know nothing about DBs) why I chose to use PG over MySQL in a project, MySQL being the more popular DB choice with other engineers, and managers fearing things that are "different" (risk). I have a few hard tecnical reasons (check constraint, deferred constraint checking, array data type), but I'm looking for a "it's more reliable" reasons. Again, the audience is managers. Is there an impartial, 3rd party evaluation of the 2 DBs out there that identifies PG as being more reliable? It might mention things like fewer incidences of corrupt tables/indexes, fewer deamon crashes, better recovery after system crashes, etc... ?
Thanks !
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter | 2009-12-16 21:15:21 | Re: PlPerl scope issue |
| Previous Message | Joshua Tolley | 2009-12-16 20:44:57 | Re: replication dbs |