From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: performace review |
Date: | 2006-10-22 16:28:36 |
Message-ID: | 5845.1161534516@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> That implies malice. The people at OpenCRX apparently really
>> believe what they wrote.
> I believe they probably do believe it and it was probably driven by a
> complete lack of understanding of PostgreSQL.
> It doesn't have to be malicious for it to be FUD though.
The psychological reason seems clear enough: if they can dismiss
postgres as not being worthy of their time, it saves them a lot of
work in supporting another database. By this point I'd imagine that
their code is sufficiently mysql-centric that trying to have real
support for other databases would be a huge undertaking; ergo, there
will be great resistance to the idea that they should take postgres
seriously. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, too, because
once the code is sufficiently tuned for mysql you can indeed show that
any other database sucks running it ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-10-22 17:39:44 | Re: storage size of "bitstring"? |
Previous Message | Alex Mayrhofer | 2006-10-22 16:24:43 | storage size of "bitstring"? |