Hm. I am not a professional DBA, but I have used both MySQL and
PostreSQL for the same application, and I can say that I am more
satisfied with PgSQL. It is faster and more reliable, on the platform
that I have built (Dual Opteron 244 w/ 3GB of PC3200). While I had few
technical problems with MySQL, I just never felt comfortable using it,
so I have switched to PgSQL for everything. Serials (aka auto-increment
in MySQL) work fantastically. The ability to SET the value of the serial
is useful. I tried for weeks to replicate that functionaility with
MySQL, and failed. The core superiority of the PgSQL SERIAL, as opposed
to the MySQL AUTO-INCREMENT lies in the fact that the serials' values
are stored in a table, and can be set, read, and predicted accurately,
and easily. My database is somewhat small (6-8GB), and PgSQL offered an
almost 15% performance increase over MySQL, for the same data.
Additionally, my support code was simplified drastically by some of the
core functions of PgSQL. For this reason, I have abandoned MySQL, and
switched to PgSQL. Also, in the past week, there have been about 10
times as many technical support problems in this mailing list, as in the
relative PgSQL list. This supports my belief that PgSQL is a better DB
platform. Thank you all for your information.
Good Day,
Mark Warner.
David Griffiths wrote:
>One other point that I forgot I mentioned - PostgresQL does not have a
>decent replication solution. There are a few solutions, including one from
>PostgreSQL.com.
>
>The PostgresQL.com version is not the latest - you need to pay for support
>to get that. The other ones were (last I looked) incomplete.
>
>Davi.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Griffiths" <dgriffiths@stripped>
>To: <david.best@stripped>; "Mark Warner"
><hammerhed@stripped>; <mysql@stripped>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:27 AM
>Subject: Re: PgSQL vs MySQL
>
>
>
>
>>As a DBA and someone who has worked both with PostgresQL and MySQL, I
>>
>>
>think
>
>
>>I can answer this knowingly.
>>
>>First, MySQL is significantly faster than PostgresQL and Oracle.
>>
>>Second, MySQL is also a simpler database to set up and configure.
>>
>>Third, the documentation is better, and there are far more third party
>>
>>
>books
>
>
>>out there.
>>
>>Fourth, MySQL has a more impressive list of customers. Yes, there are some
>>large PostgresQL customers (the .org domain system?), but none like Yahoo
>>and Slashdot.
>>
>>MySQL does not have triggers, stored procedures or views yet. Sub-selects
>>should be out in six months.
>>
>>After fighting with PostgresQL to try to get it to use indexes, rewriting
>>tonnes of queries, and still getting poor performance, I gave up on it. I
>>prefer MySQL with InnoDB.
>>
>>Some of the gotcha's are valid, and others can be found in any database.
>>Forewarned is forearmed.
>>
>>David.
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <david.best@stripped>
>>To: "Mark Warner" <hammerhed@stripped>;
>>
>>
><mysql@stripped>
>
>
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 6:51 AM
>>Subject: Re: PgSQL vs MySQL
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>What advantages, besides ease of setup, does MySQL hold over
>>>>
>>>>
>PostgreSQL?
>
>
>>>>It would seem, to me, that the two are close competitors (both in
>>>>quality, and performance).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Are you sure about quality? Check out:
>>>
>>>http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html
>>>
>>>You can check out postgresql's on the same site but they are
>>>
>>>
>significally
>
>
>>less critical. After reviewing this and talking to some other people i'm
>>switching over to postgresql. I'm sure there is a place with mysql but I
>>don't think i'd trust it for anything critical unless you very confident
>>your developers know what they are doing.
>>
>>
>>>--
>>>MySQL General Mailing List
>>>For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
>>>To unsubscribe:
>>>
>>>
>http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
>
>
>>--
>>MySQL General Mailing List
>>For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
>>To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
>>
>>
>
>
>
