Re: PG -v- MySQL

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> > I've been invited to participate in a forum which discusses technical
> issues for relational DBs used in the corporation. The 3 DBs they are
> discussing are Oracle, SQL-Server and MySQL. I'd like to introduce PG, but
> want to be able to address the "Why not use MySQL" questions when they
> arise. I know in the past there have been many comparisons between the 2
> DBs but would like to know if there are any good, recent ones. Also, any
> "off-the-cuff" comments would be welcome, especially if you have used both
> DBs.
> >
>
> I suggest you take a look at:
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/2575733/The-future-of-MySQL-The-Project
> http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html
>
> http://www.bytebot.net/blog/archives/2008/04/17/what-mysql-can-learn-from-postgresql
> http://www.commandprompt.com/files/mysql_learn.pdf
> http://people.planetpostgresql.org/mha/index.php?/archives/168-guid.html
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-04/msg00992.php

Here are some other things we have v. mysql:
*) Transactional DDL: much safer and easier to roll out changes to 24/7 systems
*) Better HA: PostgreSQL wal shipping/warm standby is much more robust
than mysql binary log shipping
*) MVCC: (I'm sure this is up there, but it's worth
repeating)...smarter locking/concurrency for high write activity
(important) applications. There is more to databases than phpbb
backend.
*) Much better shell
*) Much smarter query planner (lame rule based planner is easily outsmarted)
*) Stored procedure support/SPI interface is years beyond anything
they offer...compare pl/pgsql to their lame psm implementation.
(procedure support is much more nuanced than "procedure support,
checkmark!"
*) A stronger, albeit smaller, community.

merlin