Re: RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison. - Mailing list pgsql-general

Hi guys,

I'm willing to put this on techdocs.postgresql.org, as long as I feel
it's been written for the right reasons.

i.e. I'm all for a document(s) which helps people needing a good, solid,
Open Source database needing transactions, ACID features, etc.  But, I'm
definitely not for a document which will incite PostgreSQL-vs-MySQL
warfare and not try and get people to choost the appropriate product(s).

:)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift


Digital Wokan wrote:
>
> Knock yourself out.  I got jumped by a MySQL user on AZPHP for asking
> another person why they had their Linux/PHP setup use an NT/MSSQL
> database backend instead of Linux/PGSQL.  (IMHO, PGSQL is far closer to
> the features desired by MSSQL developers.  Though I thought I heard
> something about PGSQL procedures not being able to return recordsets.  I
> hope I heard wrong.)
>
> Alexey Borzov wrote:
> >
> > Greetings!
> >
> >     Well, I suppose everyone on this list will agree that Postgres is
> > superior over MySQL (or else they would have joined MySQL mailing list
> > *chuckle*). So I would just note one area where MySQL is considerably
> > stronger: PR.
> >
> >     Every fart of MySQL developers gets noticed by high profile sites
> > (change of logo, "NASA switches from Oracle to MySQL" - remember this
> > one?, addition of Perl SPs, etc). I even remember "Gemini
> > table type" announcement on Slashdot when this table type was complete
> > vapourware. Besides, every comparison between PgSQL and MySQL draws
> > attention from MySQL employees and volunteer trolls (check talkbacks
> > on PHPBuilder, for example).
> >
> >     I suppose PgSQL has to take a more active stance as well. Consider
> > "M$ vs Linux debates". Of course here both projects are Open Source so
> > the discussion should not be as heated... But I do think that
> > the statements in
> > http://www.mysql.com/doc/M/y/MySQL-PostgreSQL_features.html
> > should NOT go unanswered.
> >
> >     So, I propose the (semi-)official featureset comparison, but from
> > Postgres users' POV. With a healthy dose of FUD as well, it is time for MySQL
> > folks to taste their own medicine...
> >
> >     Things that, IMHO, should go into this comparison:
> > 1. MySQL does not satisfy the semi-official definition of RDBMS -
> > "Codd's 12 rules", as it is in complete violation of rules 4 and 6
> > 2. MySQL is not SQL-compliant as views and subselects are required by
> > entry-level SQL92 spec (I may be mistaken here, 'cause I have only the
> > Russian translation of Gruber's "SQL Instant Reference")
> > 3. MySQL did not have a major release to fix their shortcomings
> > in several years, while Postgres evolves constantly. Moreover,
> > according to MySQL's "roadmap" the most requested features are pushed
> > back from mythical "4.0" to even more mythical "4.1" and "4.2"
> > 4. It is very difficult to port to or from MySQL, 'cause the logic
> > that is usually incapsulated in DB should be rewritten in application.
> >
> >     Of course I don't think this should go into PgSQL manual, it is
> > definitely not the place for such rants, but it should be published on
> > some of "official" PgSQL sites. And then submitted to /. and such. :]
> >
> >     Well, I *can* take up this "project", if it will be approved here,
> > but must admit that the results should br reviewed by someone for whom
> > English is a native language. :]
> >
> > --
> > Yours, Alexey V. Borzov, Webmaster of RDW.ru
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
   - Indira Gandhi