From: Shachar Shemesh (linux-il_at_nonexisting.hamakor.org.il)
Date: Fri 18 Jun 2004 - 10:23:25 IDT
Hi Michael,
As I have written before, I'm currently working exclusively with
PostgreSQL. I will also be recommending this for any new project I start
(which does not seem to be contested by at least some of the MySQL
people here). I do, however, think that some of your remarks are a bit
far reaching.
Ben-Nes Michael wrote:
>I hope no one will shoot me :) but MySQL remind me Windows. they built
>something simple and now trying to expand its capabilities without changing
>the foult of the past.
>
>Its not true that I didnt heard about MySQL new capabilities , its just that
>they are special and not part of the basic package. PG was designed to be
>like it is now from the Begining . It is Relational DB which is much more
>sophisticated.
>
>
Then again, if a database has modular data storage, and one of the data
storages offer all that you need, and STILL be pretty fast, why
shouldn't you? Then again, I get the feeling that measuring speed is a
bit dependent on who is doing the measuring. For example, the benchmark
quoted before that gave MySQL and Oracle the same speed score did not
benchmark Postgres at all.
>for example why MySQL is lame:
>Sagi Wrote:
>
>
>>One thing, though. Unlike some other DB's, MySQL data types are not
>>totally strict - if you try to insert data of a wrong type it will
>>usually try to convert it instead of throwing an error. This may lead to
>>data loss if your application is poorly written
>>
>>
>
>PG does not accept poorly written codes, this is part of the itegrity.
>coders do mistakes which need to fix and you cant allow loosing data becouse
>of this.
>
>
Then do help me to solve
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-06/msg00681.php, please.
This is a discussion between two open source groups, not a commercial
fight where we try to find fault in someone else's arguments. MySQL has
faults. Well, duh? Of course it does. It's a software package. Show me
one that doesn't (yes, even qmail has faults, just none with security
implications). The thing for me is not to understand whether I need to
drop PosgreSQL and switch to MySQL right now. I know PostgreSQL, and
it's a good DB to use for new projects. I will have to look into
Firebird, because no one else seems to know it on this list. Then again,
maybe that's a pretty serious argument against it. The thing for me is,
however, to figure out whether an existing client/friend/whatever who
already has MySQL (or who is insisting on using it) should be convinced
otherwise, or whether MySQL can deliver what said client/friend/whatever
needs.
>There way too much to write about the difrences but one thing is sure.
>almost all the SQL gurus which i had the honer to speak with stated that PG
>is a very serious DB which worth working with.
>
>
I don't think anyone here claimed otherwise. There were such claims
against MySQL, however, and they seem to be either exaggerated or dated.
>I incourge those who intrested in the area to search the net, then decide. I
>myself will not work with MySQL if I could avoid it.
>
>
Any specific links you can point out? I'm talking about "I did this with
MySQL, and these are the bad things that happened", or about "don't do
such and such, as MySQL can't handle it". I.e. I'm looking for specifics.
>Cheers
>
>
Shachar
-- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. http://www.lingnu.com/ ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request_at_linux.org.il with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request_at_linux.org.il
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 18 Jun 2004 - 10:35:39 IDT