From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Ned Lilly" <ned(at)nedscape(dot)com> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL Advocacy" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: MySQL 5 comparison |
Date: | 2005-01-06 13:45:44 |
Message-ID: | 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A7596@Herge.rcsinc.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
> Has anyone spent any time with the MySQL 5.0 alpha, set to go into
beta
> shortly
(http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/01/04/HNmysql5beta_1.html)?
>
> Would be interesting to have a rudimentary comparison checklist - not
so
> much benchmarks, as features, as they seem to have added a lot. And
any
> info on how they've implemented these features (e.g. multiple table
types
> in order to use different features, etc.) would be of interest.
>
> Cheers,
> Ned
Putting my advocacy hat on,
If you look at their description of the upcoming features, it's
saturated with words like 'basic', 'initial', and 'rudimentary'. I
don't think mysql 5.0 will be a watershed moment where it will become
the database of choice for industrial application development...
The new stuff on a point by point feature comparison may look
impressive, but they need to work on internal stuff like the locking
engine, get some real logging etc.
On a more even handed note, it's nice to see them get some real
features. Open source success stories are not zero-sum, so what's good
for them is not necessarily bad for us. Competition is good, but pg is
at least 3 years ahead of them in development!
Merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Bernier | 2005-01-06 14:11:06 | Re: MySQL 5 comparison |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-01-06 13:25:02 | Re: MySQL 5 comparison |