Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> - MySQL's feature set corresponds to ...:
> mostly read-only, simple SQL, design implemented by developers, so no
> DBA required.
>
> - PostgreSQL's feature set works for "difficult/complex" web apps.
Really. It looks to me like MySQL's niche that postgresql doesn't yet
touch is in the most complex, most insert/update intensive applications.
The two reference MySQL projects that first come to my mind are
the Sabre airline system[1]; and Google Adwords[2,3]. Both
extremely update intensive applications - far beyond what I see
PostgreSQL being used for.
In contrast - I see postgresql's successes mostly in simple (single
monolithic instances) and read-mostly applications (data mining
like Genentech's case study on the web site).
While I totally agree with Josh that Oracle's $7.2Billion database
revenue [4] is way more interesting than MySQL's $0.05Billion; it
seems a bit odd to see people suggesting that MySQL is for simpler and
read-mostly systems; when it seems the most complex and most update
intensive applications are the niche that it has that PostgreSQL
doesn't yet.
What am I missing?
[1] http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/downloads/Sabre-HP-MySQL-case-study.pdf
[2] http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2005/12/lets-get-real-database.html
[3] http://zurlocker.typepad.com/theopenforce/2005/12/googles_use_of_.html
[4] http://www.sqlmanager.net/en/news/sql/1189
