On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh@pop.jaring.my> wrote:
> At 05:44 AM 12/17/2009, Greg Smith wrote:
>>
>> You've probably already found
>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_of_MySQL:_Comparing_Reliability_and_Speed_in_2007
>> which was my long treatment of this topic (and overdue for an update).
>>
>> The main thing I intended to put into such an update when I get to it is
>> talking about the really deplorable bug handling situation for MySQL, which
>> is part of how all the data corruption issues show up. There's a good
>> overview of its general weirdness at
>> http://www.xaprb.com/blog/2007/08/12/what-would-make-me-buy-mysql-enterprise/
>> and the following series of pages lead you through my favorite set of bugs:
>
> More so when Monty himself grumbles about the bug handling situation:
>
> http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/11/oops-we-did-it-again-mysql-51-released.html
>
> If people still insist on MySQL, you might want to get it in writing that
> it's someone else's decision to use MySQL and not yours ;).
>
> Ten or so years ago MySQL was better than Postgres95, and it would have been
> easy to justify using MySQL over Postgres95 (which was really slow and had a
> fair number of bugs). But Postgresql is much better than MySQL now. That's
> just my opinion of course.
I don't think anybody is going to dispute that here. IMO, Postgres is
just completely in an another league on technical terms. From a
business point of view, the BSD license is great but I can understand
being nervous about availability and price of postgresql talent. In
the long run though, you are much better off with one of us!
merlin
