[I skipped the PHP3 list because there this discussion is even more
off-topic than here ...]
On Sun 1999-10-03 22:30:44 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Second, the MySQL folks don't mention the features they _don't_ have,
> except now they mention they don't have transactions.
Well, maybe nobody told you, but see chapter "5.3 Functionality
missing from MySQL" of the MySQL Reference Manual ...
So your statement is plain wrong and I'd really appreciate you not to
make such general statements if you don't have a clue.
But in general, you never can mention every features that exists in
any of the existing DBMSs! A reasonable compromise is to compare
one's feature set with a know base like a standard. The MySQL Manual
compares against SQL92 and clearly says what's there and what's
What I like about the MySQL developers (and the MySQL Manual) is that
they--as far as I know them--never try to devalue other products but
just state what's there, what's not there, for what kind of
applications MySQL fits best, for which not, and how to work around
given limitaions, if possible. In short: they are objective.
So it would be nice, if try to be objective, too.
> The bottom line from my perspective is that the benchmark is really
> intended not as a fair comparison, but to make MySQL look good.
Hmm, I really wonder what makes you think so?
What is not fair about this comparison?
> This upset me, but the increasing growth of PostgreSQL and the
> awards we have won make me suspect that people are smarter than we
> think, and have figured out where MySQL is strongest, and where
> PostgreSQL is strongest.
Exactly. This is, why MySQL is often seen as db backend for web
applications, because the mix of mainly selects with fewer inserts,
combined with simple processing only and the need for great speed
fits exactly MySQL's feature set.
For many other applications MySQL won't be an ideal choice, but
actually (believe it or not) this is exactly what the MySQL developers
say themself, too! Just use the right tool for the right task.
> [I see this is going to MySQL mailing lists, so this may start a
> discussion all over again.]
Well, if everybody keeps to the facts, then this is good!
There are maybe quite a few people out there looking for 'the best'
DMBS for their application. and those will appreciate an objective
comparison that takes into account as many aspects as possible like:
- feature set
- compatibility (to whatever standard makes sense)
BTW, I'm just a DBMS user, no developer, and besides MySQL I'm using
Informix, Transbase, and Oracle, too ...
A DBMS is no religion, it's a tool to get your work done.
Martin Ramsch <m.ramsch@stripped> <URL: http://home.pages.de/~ramsch/ >
PGP KeyID=0xE8EF4F75 FiPr=5244 5EF3 B0B1 3826 E4EC 8058 7B31 3AD7