The page: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_of_MySQL_2009 Is inappropiate - Mailing list pgsql-www

From fabio mariotti
Subject The page: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_of_MySQL_2009 Is inappropiate
Date
Msg-id AANLkTinbOdEx1yeZ9gJ02pGMnAaH4sN6iGEYE9Oji-9O@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: The page: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_of_MySQL_2009 Is inappropiate  (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>)
Re: The page: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_of_MySQL_2009 Is inappropiate  (Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com>)
Re: The page: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_of_MySQL_2009 Is inappropiate  (Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: The page: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_of_MySQL_2009 Is inappropiate  (Rob Wultsch <wultsch@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-www
Dear Postgresql team,

I find this page very inappropriate.
The page:

The title is an advertisement. Could have been PostgreSQL versus MySQL/2009.

I did not read the page for a single reason: just by scrawling, moving the page up an down
I didn't see a number or a graph. There is even a section named speed: no numbers.
Even a subsection called: Benchmarks. No numbers again.

Please read your own wiki: Benchmarks. This is advertisement.

But you might want to know how I got to the page. I was trying to sell alternatives to MS
products. I included postgresql within the others (MySQL, Oracle). Honestly: never again.

I do understand that it might be a monopole, but it does just work better. Not faster.
Such a document from postgresql wiki is not really inviting.

Best
F

PS:
I saved the page, just in case. But please: Check the benchmarks section.

pgsql-www by date:

Previous
From: Cédric Villemain
Date:
Subject: Re: "Alpha" page unmaingained? Still claims 9.1alpha1 is newest
Next
From: Dave Page
Date:
Subject: Re: The page: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_of_MySQL_2009 Is inappropiate