On 12/05/2013 07:52 AM, Robert Treat wrote:
> (woops, re-sending to OP as I forgot to cc the list)
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Sameer Kumar <sameer.kumar@ashnik.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was recently going through the ranking of Databases given by db-engines.com
>>
>> PostgreSQL was ranked 5th, with a score 7 times lesser than Oracle and 6times lesser than MySQL. You can check their
rankingAlgorithm over here:
>> http://db-engines.com/en/ranking_definition
I've discussed their ranking system extensively with these guys offlist.
I do think there are things about how they rank databases which biases
the ranking against PostgreSQL, but they are comfortable with their
ranking system and it's important to them to apply it consistently and
not retroactively redefine it. Importantly, I think it does show two
things which are true regardless of numerical scoring:
* we are still behind MySQL and Oracle in terms of *established users*.
That is, while a plurality of *new* DB projects are on Postgres, there
are millions of legacy installs of the earlier-established databases.
* their stats show that PostgreSQL is growing and the other databases
aren't.
Their data collection also shows certain things we ought to pay more
attention to, like that we're way behind in adoption in India and China
if google stats are anything to go by.
Now, the issues I have with how they score us are:
* the PostgreSQL/postgres/pgsql thing, as noted by Robert
* That stackexchange is counted towards our score, and our own mailing
lists aren't.
However, I did a rough recalculation with adjustment for the above, and
while we had a better numerical score, we still came out behind MySQL,
so I stopped arguing.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
