Robert wrote
To be fair you'd have to point out they made this decision "a long time
ago" back when mysql was faster than postgresql, and they could use
mysql's replication feature to "scale up" to the number of users they
needed to support.
These days that gap is virtually nonexistent especially when you
consider how much more efficient their code could be if they didn't have
to write all the transaction/data-checking/table-joining logic into
their code and could just let the database do it. Still I can't blame
them for not wanting to rewrite their app.
Along these lines, "The Register" (theregister.com) just decided to
switch their site to bricolage, which is PostgreSQL based.
Robert Treat
___________________________________________________________
Yes, and as I've mentioned in other posts there are some nice things
about mysql besides just being fast. I would prefer to use postgres for
almost any type of project, but that does not necessarily mean mysql is
bad at all tasks. I still give the mysql team credit for building,
writing, and maintaining a wildly popular open source application.
Open source success stories are good for everyone involved, even in a
single contested market like database servers. Economic success is not
zero-sum. I'm glad to hear they were able to procure investment. That
is one more brick in the foundation in what is widely considered to be
the future of software development. 17m$ goes a long way to convincing
middle managers and petty officials that there really is something in
this open source business. Indirectly this helps postgres as well; I
see the database applications market as full of potential right now.
I prefer postgres not just for technical reasons but for the spirit and
people behind the project. So long as the postgres team still has that
mojo it will still be a better database, even if it gets less notice in
the press.
Merlin
