Robert Treat wrote:
> One thing that has been bothering me lately is the amount of FUD that
is
> used in the pro-mysql arguments.
That is a serious problem. I'd like to point out that on Slashdot, at
least, there was a lot more of FUD (mostly true) about mysql that got
higher mods than postgres. Mysql was compared to a flat file system
with sql, and even was (insult of insults) compared unfavorably to
access.
The real question is: why is mysql getting much greater attention from
the mainstream press? Some of the mainstream news sites are providing
benchmarks and comparisons between mysql and big iron. Where is
postgres? A lot of the information on the web is outdated and/or
deliberately set up to magnify postgres's one performance weakness (if
you call it that): insert performance outside of wrapped transactions.
This is the challenge to the advocacy group: advocate. Write benchmarks
and editorials and submit them to sites like phpbuilder and Slashdot.
Since toast came out, there is really very little use for any other
database unless you absolutely have to deploy on windows or require
replication. My company is reluctant to move to postgres from sql
server because of limited visibility (slammer is helping tho).
Merlin
