On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:26:34AM +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> Personally my opinion is that there is no point in pushing PostgreSQL
> everywhere -- if there is no siginifcant performance gain, most managers
> will refuse it, on the grounds that "if it ain't (too) broke, don't fix it".
> The real places to "attack at" are the BIG dbs, the dataware housing
> applications. Places where MySQL is not used, because someones
> select count(*) should not kill the database. Because the queries
> take few hours to complete "by design". This should be doable. :)
The problem with limiting ourselves to going after only the 'high end'
of databases is that MySQL is also pushing in that direction, but they
have the advantage of a much larger user base than us. So in the
not-to-distant future, a lot of people who are looking to come off of
Oracle will look at both MySQL and PostgreSQL (in fact I'm sure there's
already some people moving from Oracle to MySQL). When MySQL is at that
point, which database do you think executives will be choosing? The one
with a very large userbase and lots of marketing and PR that they've
heard plenty about, or the one that might theoretically be technically
superior but has a small userbase and they've never heard of? And if the
technical people in the company are MySQL users, because that's the
database they cut their teeth on...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
