Thread: Re: Why PostgreSQL is not that popular as MySQL?
Raymond Chui <raymond.chui@noaa.gov> writes: > I am just start look at PostgreSQL for our Redhat Linux. > I am wonder why most of people choose MySQL in Linux > world rather than PostgreSQL? PostgreSQL has 15 years > history (I never know that before) which is much longer > than MySQL. Also PostgreSQL supports a lot of things > which MySQL has not support yet. Postgres, yes. PostgreSQL, no. PostgreSQL was a new project with Postgres95 as a starting point. Postgres95 was an attempt to put an SQL front-end on Postgres. AFAIK, most all of the Postgres code was jettisoned early on for performance reasons. That makes PostgreSQL roughly five years old, code-wise. I still have a Postgres95 tree in CVS before the PostgreSQL fork to prove it, too! ;) -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> Phone: (760) 499-9142 President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152 My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
On 29 Nov 2000, Ronald Cole wrote:
> Raymond Chui <raymond.chui@noaa.gov> writes:
> > I am just start look at PostgreSQL for our Redhat Linux.
> > I am wonder why most of people choose MySQL in Linux
> > world rather than PostgreSQL? PostgreSQL has 15 years
> > history (I never know that before) which is much longer
> > than MySQL. Also PostgreSQL supports a lot of things
> > which MySQL has not support yet.
>
> Postgres, yes. PostgreSQL, no. PostgreSQL was a new project with
> Postgres95 as a starting point. Postgres95 was an attempt to put an
> SQL front-end on Postgres. AFAIK, most all of the Postgres code was
> jettisoned early on for performance reasons. That makes PostgreSQL
> roughly five years old, code-wise.
>
> I still have a Postgres95 tree in CVS before the PostgreSQL fork to
> prove it, too! ;)
so do we :) way way back when:
RCS file: /home/projects/pgsql/cvsroot/pgsql/HISTORY,v
Working file: HISTORY
head: 1.79
branch:
locks: strict
access list:
symbolic names:
REL7_0_PATCHES: 1.70.0.2
REL7_0: 1.70
REL6_5_PATCHES: 1.52.0.2
REL6_5: 1.52
REL6_4: 1.44.0.2
release-6-3: 1.33
SUPPORT: 1.1.1.1
PG95-DIST: 1.1.1
---------------
Postgres95 1.02 Thu Aug 1 18:00:00 EDT 1996
-------------------------------------------------------------
Source code maintainenance and development
* worldwide team of volunteers
* the source tree now in CVS at ftp.ki.net
* developers mailing list - pg95-dev@ki.net
---------------
yeesh ... now *that* is old ... 4.5 years and growing ...
Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> writes:
> Postgres, yes. PostgreSQL, no. PostgreSQL was a new project with
> Postgres95 as a starting point. Postgres95 was an attempt to put an
> SQL front-end on Postgres.
Right; original Postgres used a query language called "POSTQUEL",
which was sort of like SQL but not compatible.
> AFAIK, most all of the Postgres code was jettisoned early on for
> performance reasons. That makes PostgreSQL roughly five years old,
> code-wise.
This I dispute. A lot of the core functionality has a very traceable
lineage back to original Postgres; even though some details of the code
may have been revised pretty heavily, the algorithms and design
decisions remain. This has good points and bad points ;-) ... but
it's absolutely not true that Postgres95 threw away the existing code
and started over. As you said yourself, it was more of a question of
sticking a new frontend (ie, parser) on the existing database engine.
regards, tom lane
MySQL simply did a better job of marketing themselves to an audience that typically doesn't know SQL or understand relational databases. MySQL focuses on speed as it's primary asset. Integration with quick growing languages (like PHP) helped a lot too. MySQL is also the product of an existing software company that employed basic marketing principles early in the game. Most of the web based projects I have found were obviously written by (good) programmers that just didn't have a grasp of relational data models. They just needed a quick & easy way to store large tables of information. (Berkley DBM's only go so far) Given that this "less DB savvy" audience didn't understand relational databases, things like triggers and decent SQL support don't strike them as important as speed. MySQL is a good migration path for xBase, and the multitude of DBM based scripts that were dominate a few years ago. PostgreSQL is the only path for someone that intends to use relational design in their applications. MySQL doesn't even come close. The bottom line is that the marketing of PostgreSQL is not even close to that of MySQL. Thank god the code, community and support doesn't follow suit! my 2 cents --rob ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy@hub.org> To: "Ronald Cole" <ronald@forte-intl.com> Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 3:08 PM Subject: Re: Re: Why PostgreSQL is not that popular as MySQL? > On 29 Nov 2000, Ronald Cole wrote: > > > Raymond Chui <raymond.chui@noaa.gov> writes: > > > I am just start look at PostgreSQL for our Redhat Linux. > > > I am wonder why most of people choose MySQL in Linux > > > world rather than PostgreSQL? PostgreSQL has 15 years > > > history (I never know that before) which is much longer > > > than MySQL. Also PostgreSQL supports a lot of things > > > which MySQL has not support yet. > > > > Postgres, yes. PostgreSQL, no. PostgreSQL was a new project with > > Postgres95 as a starting point. Postgres95 was an attempt to put an > > SQL front-end on Postgres. AFAIK, most all of the Postgres code was > > jettisoned early on for performance reasons. That makes PostgreSQL > > roughly five years old, code-wise. > > > > I still have a Postgres95 tree in CVS before the PostgreSQL fork to > > prove it, too! ;) > > so do we :) way way back when: > > RCS file: /home/projects/pgsql/cvsroot/pgsql/HISTORY,v > Working file: HISTORY > head: 1.79 > branch: > locks: strict > access list: > symbolic names: > REL7_0_PATCHES: 1.70.0.2 > REL7_0: 1.70 > REL6_5_PATCHES: 1.52.0.2 > REL6_5: 1.52 > REL6_4: 1.44.0.2 > release-6-3: 1.33 > SUPPORT: 1.1.1.1 > PG95-DIST: 1.1.1 > > --------------- > Postgres95 1.02 Thu Aug 1 18:00:00 EDT 1996 > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Source code maintainenance and development > * worldwide team of volunteers > * the source tree now in CVS at ftp.ki.net > * developers mailing list - pg95-dev@ki.net > --------------- > > yeesh ... now *that* is old ... 4.5 years and growing ... > > >
> The bottom line is that the marketing of PostgreSQL is not even close to > that of MySQL. Thank god the code, community and support doesn't follow > suit! I think MySQL got a big start by migrating mSQL users years ago and having a compatibility module for mSQL. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > The bottom line is that the marketing of PostgreSQL is not even close to > > that of MySQL. Thank god the code, community and support doesn't follow > > suit! > > I think MySQL got a big start by migrating mSQL users years ago and > having a compatibility module for mSQL. One great advantage of mySQL (and mSQL) ist the low connection-overhead. Especially in mSQL this was an explicit design-goal. In CGI-based WEB-environments it is very important that the time spent for connecting the database is as low as possible. Time wasted there cannot be autweight by fast SELECTS since many CGI do only very few SQL-statements. Using later WEB-techniques (as e.g. Servlets or Fast-CGI) this part becomes less important since an single DB-connection can be kept open across multiple WWW-requests. In applications where the connection is kept open for a long time the connection overhead becomes insignificant. Elmar