Thread: RE: Why is there so much MySQL bashing???
Take your own advice and keep it professional. Drop the part about whining losers and people might not take this as a troll. ;-) Sorry to everyone, but I just couldn't resist answering this. Cheers, Craig > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Hallstrom [mailto:philip@adhesivemedia.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 5:05 PM > To: PostgreSQL General > Subject: [GENERAL] Why is there so much MySQL bashing??? > > > Hi all - > I'm not here to start a war, but it seems to me that there is a > fairly large amount of MySQL bashing in this group. Why? What's the > point? It seems to me that if PostgreSQL wants an enemy to fight it > should be Microsoft SQLServer and Oracle. It seems to me that it's > PostgreSQL/MySQL vs those two. Why fight amongst ourselves? > > Now, if there is something truly lacking in MySQL, that completely > different because this stuff ends up in the archives and people make > decisions based off what they find there. However, it needs > to be kept > professional, don't you think? > > What are my impressions going to be of PostgreSQL (and now > Great Bridge > since their name will pop up as well) if I search for "mysql vs > postgresql" and see a lot of mysql bashing posts in thse > lists? I'm going > to think you all are a bunch of whining losers who can't fathom the > possibility that there might be good (or even better) alternatives out > there. > > > That can't be good for PostgreSQL, can it? > > -philip > >
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Craig L. Ching wrote: > Take your own advice and keep it professional. Drop the part about whining > losers and people might not take this as a troll. ;-) Sorry to everyone, > but I just couldn't resist answering this. No argument here, I was about to answer myself. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
You're right of course, I should have left that out... but my point is still valid. -philip On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Craig L. Ching wrote: > Take your own advice and keep it professional. Drop the part about whining > losers and people might not take this as a troll. ;-) Sorry to everyone, > but I just couldn't resist answering this. > > Cheers, > Craig > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Philip Hallstrom [mailto:philip@adhesivemedia.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 5:05 PM > > To: PostgreSQL General > > Subject: [GENERAL] Why is there so much MySQL bashing??? > > > > > > Hi all - > > I'm not here to start a war, but it seems to me that there is a > > fairly large amount of MySQL bashing in this group. Why? What's the > > point? It seems to me that if PostgreSQL wants an enemy to fight it > > should be Microsoft SQLServer and Oracle. It seems to me that it's > > PostgreSQL/MySQL vs those two. Why fight amongst ourselves? > > > > Now, if there is something truly lacking in MySQL, that completely > > different because this stuff ends up in the archives and people make > > decisions based off what they find there. However, it needs > > to be kept > > professional, don't you think? > > > > What are my impressions going to be of PostgreSQL (and now > > Great Bridge > > since their name will pop up as well) if I search for "mysql vs > > postgresql" and see a lot of mysql bashing posts in thse > > lists? I'm going > > to think you all are a bunch of whining losers who can't fathom the > > possibility that there might be good (or even better) alternatives out > > there. > > > > > > That can't be good for PostgreSQL, can it? > > > > -philip > > > > >
I think alot of the perceived bashing from the pg community is due to the fact historically most of mysql's marketing and pr has been deceptive and outright wrong. After so much crying wolf it is hard for the village to believe anything the boy has to say. The majority of open source db installs are running on what the pg community percieves to be an inferior product. Granted it is *our* perception but if you look at the breakdown of users of mysql vs postgres it tends to be professional programmer prefer to use pg. This is due to the fact that have a more concrete understanding of the two underlying architectures. Mysql is a fine product for the majority of users. Why because it works, is easy to work with, and the momentum is with them, but if you are a looking at a more rock solid product with a codebase that will approach the demands that mission critical Oracle like users need PG is vastly closer and will be the only choice that will most likely perform up to the standards that an enterprise solution demands. These opinions are my own but the more informed programmers (PHDs and such) will probably agree. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>should be Microsoft SQLServer and Oracle. It seems to me that it's >PostgreSQL/MySQL vs those two. Why fight amongst ourselves? > >Now, if there is something truly lacking in MySQL, that completely >different because this stuff ends up in the archives and people make >decisions based off what they find there. However, it needs to be kept >professional, don't you think? I think it's mostly because of the differences between PostgreSQL and MySQL in areas like transactions, reliability, scalability, etc., that make one look like a child's toy and one look like a commercial product (I'll leave it to the reader to figure out which is which :). Unfortunately, due to its higher profile, if anyone looks on postgres and mysql as the open source "alternatives", they're just going to apply what they've seen of MySQL to both. That certainly doesn't help postgres feel any better. I, for one, prefer to distance the two products as much as possible for that same reason. Otherwise, it makes it harder to pitch it to my boss, you know :) Rob Nelson rdnelson@co.centre.pa.us
Philip Hallstrom wrote: > > You're right of course, I should have left that out... but my point is > still valid. Pointing out the serious limitations in MySQL is not, IMHO, bashing. MySQL currently has serious limitations for many RDBMS uses. Concurrent performance under industry-standard benchmarks in one indicator. I my previous conversations with Monty, anytime I brought up the subject of multiuser benchmarks, he consistently stated that the single-user case was more important, as that's how the current (as of the last time I looked) MySQL 'benchmarks' are structured. Concurrent benchmarking, with a real-world mix of queries (such as AS3AP and TPC-C), is far more useful to those who are using an RDBMS for more than just a web backend. Although, it is a useful average indicator of web backend performance as well. And I have to note that SourceForge switched for performance reasons. Seems there was a great deal of Postgres-bashing from the MySQL side not long ago..... -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Agree 100% -----Original Message----- From: Philip Hallstrom [mailto:philip@adhesivemedia.com] Sent: 17 January 2001 10:05 To: PostgreSQL General Subject: Why is there so much MySQL bashing??? > What are my impressions going to be of PostgreSQL (and now Great Bridge > since their name will pop up as well) if I search for "mysql vs > postgresql" and see a lot of mysql bashing posts in thse lists? I'm going > to think you all are a bunch of whining losers who can't fathom the > possibility that there might be good (or even better) alternatives out > there. > That can't be good for PostgreSQL, can it? -philip
> > That can't be good for PostgreSQL, can it? Neither can not being able to do rpm -Uvh and have it work first time... Nor not finding a Dreamweaver Ultradev database connection for Postgresql in the live data menu when there is a Mysql one... Nor not being able to find somewhere to get a Postgresql / JSP application hosted when there are hundreds of ISPs hosting Mysql / JSP... All these things must change. Just being better is not good enough - the Mac is a better desktop computer than a Windows PC. Cheers Tony Grant -- It's just some computers connected together...
Tony Grant wrote: > > > > > That can't be good for PostgreSQL, can it? > > Neither can not being able to do rpm -Uvh and have it work first time... Hmmmm... When was the last time you tried? Thanks to the 'Do No Harm' principle, it would be foolhardy to do what has to be done to upgrade between major versions in a fully automatic fashion. So the semiautomatic way it is now done is the current best compromise. Of course, the ideal would be for a new version of PostgreSQL to be able to at least read and convert existing tables on the fly (as in when postmaster is started, or when a backend is first brought up on the table in question, or even a standalone migration utility that doesn't require an old version of the backend to read the old version files), but I wouldn't hold your breath. Yes, the existing scheme is a little baroque -- but it's better than it used to be. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
On 2001.01.18 17:31:29 +0100 Lamar Owen wrote: > Tony Grant wrote: > > > > > > > > That can't be good for PostgreSQL, can it? > > > > Neither can not being able to do rpm -Uvh and have it work first > time... > > Hmmmm... When was the last time you tried? Yesterday... The RedHat 6.2 rpms are broken if they find the tiniest trace of a preceding instalation. The machine target for 7.0.3 had a copy of 6.5.x installed when the ReHat server was installed. The database system was initiallised but never used. I removed all traces of the 6.5.x install and did a 7.0.3 install. initdb fails of course because there must be something somewhere that makes it choke. I have installed previous versions from source and spent hours getting permissions right so that initdb would run. Now I just want to set up a new machine and rpm is a convenient way of doing that. When it doesn't work as advertized it is a little "annoying". Any pointers greatly appreciated. Cheers Tony Grant -- It's just some computers connected together...
carl garland wrote:
>
> I think alot of the perceived bashing from the pg community is due
> to the fact historically most of mysql's marketing and pr has
> been deceptive and outright wrong. After so much crying wolf it is
> hard for the village to believe anything the boy has to say.
> The majority of open source db installs are running on what the
> pg community percieves to be an inferior product. Granted it is
> *our* perception but if you look at the breakdown of users of mysql
> vs postgres it tends to be professional programmer prefer to use
> pg. This is due to the fact that have a more concrete understanding
> of the two underlying architectures. Mysql is a fine product for
> the majority of users. Why because it works, is easy to work with,
> and the momentum is with them, but if you are a looking at a more
> rock solid product with a codebase that will approach the demands
> that mission critical Oracle like users need PG is vastly closer and
> will be the only choice that will most likely perform up to the
> standards that an enterprise solution demands.
> These opinions are my own but the more informed programmers (PHDs and
> such) will probably agree.
Sorry to add to the noise, but I must add that, to the best of my
knowlege, MySQL currently (my last look on their pages, especially the
"crash-me" pages, was about 2 weeks ago) has :
- No transactions
- No views
- No subqueries
and is therefore an excruciating pain in the *ss to use for intricated
problems (databases using a lot of tables whith highly irregular
structures).
Furthermore, various reports show that for simple problems
(simple-structure databases), MySQL has a better performance under light
loads, but that PostgreSQL scales bertter (the degradation of
performance with load is much slower). This information I have
secondhand, so I cannot commit myself on it.
In other words, it seems that MySQL developpers favored high simple-case
performance over competence, thus missing the whole point of an RDBMS
over an indexed file collection : the ability to find answers to
questions not planned at design time.
My two (Euro-)cents,
Emmanuel Charpentier
--
Emmanuel Charpentier
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:47:55PM +0100, Tony Grant wrote: <snip> > the > Mac is a better desktop computer than a Windows PC. Gratuitous flamebait, just in case anyone wondered. Paul
Tony Grant wrote:
> initdb fails of course because there must be something somewhere that makes
> it choke. I have installed previous versions from source and spent hours
> getting permissions right so that initdb would run. Now I just want to set
> up a new machine and rpm is a convenient way of doing that. When it doesn't
> work as advertized it is a little "annoying".
>
> Any pointers greatly appreciated.
Yepp,
any pointers greatly appreciated. Can imagine how many
different places there are, where your "something somewhere"
could hang in?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Just a counter-thought to an earlier post, wherein it was suggested that MySQL user might be offended by the bashing, and thus avoid switching. A MySQL user considers switching to postgreSQL, so he goes to check the PGSQL mailing list: Possibility 1. They find people are fairly muted, and thinks the differences are no big deal, just friendly differences. So they don't switch. Why should they? Possibility 2. He finds people who have switched, and think that it's a *really big deal*, because they now hate MySQL so much. Realizing that they could have a much better db system, they seriously consider a switch. Taking a page from M$, they don't exactly sit on the sidelines and avoid bashing Linux, Solaris, etc.... politeness is great for getting along and sharing space. If you want to take over marketshare, though, it doesn't quite work. -Ronabop -- Personal: ron@opus1.com, 520-326-6109, http://www.opus1.com/ron/ Work: rchmara@pnsinc.com, 520-546-8993, http://www.pnsinc.com/ The opinions expressed in this email are not necessarily those of myself, my employers, or any of the other little voices in my head.
Ron Chmara wrote: > > Just a counter-thought to an earlier post, wherein > it was suggested that MySQL user might be offended by the > bashing, and thus avoid switching. > > A MySQL user considers switching to postgreSQL, so > he goes to check the PGSQL mailing list: > > Possibility 1. They find people are fairly muted, and thinks the > differences are no big deal, just friendly differences. So they > don't switch. Why should they? > > Possibility 2. He finds people who have switched, and think that > it's a *really big deal*, because they now hate MySQL so much. > Realizing that they could have a much better db system, they > seriously consider a switch. > > Taking a page from M$, they don't exactly sit on the sidelines > and avoid bashing Linux, Solaris, etc.... politeness is great > for getting along and sharing space. If you want to take over > marketshare, though, it doesn't quite work. > > -Ronabop > I wish Postgresql users were more outspoken - This page - http://openacs.org/philosophy/why-not-mysql.html and reading Bruce Momjian's pdf book - completely changed me I always heard comments like - "you don't need transactions" "you can get away with no subqueries" - "MYsql is good for 95% of people" - "who needs triggers" and you never hear referential integrity mentioned when you use MYsql. Now I realize what I missed out on, and I'm close to hating MYsql(close not actually) - I wish there were more webpages, comments on mailing lists that explained why Postgresql is better. Im really angry with myself that I've wasted a huge amount of time when I could have been using Postgresql all this time - So don't stop MYsql bashing completely
> I wish Postgresql users were more outspoken - > > This page - http://openacs.org/philosophy/why-not-mysql.html > and reading Bruce Momjian's pdf book - completely changed me > > I always heard comments like - "you don't need transactions" "you can > get away with no subqueries" - "MYsql is good for 95% of people" - "who > needs triggers" and you never hear referential integrity mentioned when > you use MYsql. > > Now I realize what I missed out on, and I'm close to hating MYsql(close > not actually) - I wish there were more webpages, comments on mailing > lists that explained why Postgresql is better. > Im really angry with myself that I've wasted a huge amount of time when > I could have been using Postgresql all this time - > So don't stop MYsql bashing completely It is people like you telling others about PostgreSQL that has made us popular. -- 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
At 07:38 PM 1/19/01 -0700, Ron Chmara wrote: >Taking a page from M$, they don't exactly sit on the sidelines >and avoid bashing Linux, Solaris, etc.... politeness is great >for getting along and sharing space. If you want to take over >marketshare, though, it doesn't quite work. Why "take over marketshare"? Why should we take a page from M$? What are the end objectives? Make more money? The marketshare for free software isn't going to make you the next M$ ;). If the objective is to help more people, I'd personally prefer to gain usershare from providing a tool that really is more helpful to more people than from bashing others. Same if it's to build a reputation - if you want a lasting reputation that is. Regarding "why there is so much bashing" aka "religious wars": I believe most of us still have strong tendencies towards the primitive mindset of categorizing things into either "good" and "bad" exclusively. Such categorizing can be useful as a form of decision caching, but in many cases it is counter productive. I've been guilty of this, and will probably continue to be. Another reason is because the entitity has become associated with our selves, and most people think "Me Good". Yeah we should just pick the right tool for the job, but often the tool at hand is almost good enough :). And maybe that's why some bashing is needed - to get people to use the right tool for them. But you have to pick the right bashing for the job too ;). Cheerio, Link.