On 10/11/07, Derek Rodner <derek.rodner@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Sean Hull over at Database Journal has posted Part 2 of his database
> comparison.
> ...
> I'd be interested to get the community's take on the portrayal of Postgres.
Both articles are fairly uninformed when it comes to all three databases.
Under Stored Procedures, it doesn't mention that MySQL doesn't support
dynamic SQL within them.
Triggers says all systems them support them, but doesn't differentiate
statement-level and row-level triggers (which MySQL doesn't support).
Similarly, multiple Oracle and Postgres claims are wrong.
Under Indexing, it doesn't mention that you can write your own index
implementations in Oracle. Likewise, it states that functional
indexes are slow?
Under Data Types, it doesn't mention that Oracle supports native float
and double (but gives MySQL and Postgres props for it). Likewise, it
says Postgres supports 4GB text... nope.
Under Transaction Support, it says, "Oracle's own performance views in
its data dictionary are not transactional. The reason? Performance
of the overall system would be abysmal if they tried that." Yeah,
that's because they are *dynamic* views... and they represent runtime
data, not stored data; a completely invalid comparison to MyISAM.
Sadly, the author of this article seemingly meets the Jack of all
trades, master of none criteria. It would've been more helpful for
this dude to at least read the Postgres manual :(
--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com
Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
