Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison

Hi!

>>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

<cut>

Bruce> I am talking about the database comparison chart.  We said in the past,
Bruce> "Hey, you don't mention a major feature that every DBMS should have, and
Bruce> that is transaction/rollback, and they said, "We don't know how to test
Bruce> for that."  Well, all it takes is "BEGIN WORK; DELETE; ROLLBACK" and see
Bruce> if the deletion is there.  Not rocket science.

It seams you are not up to date;  We added a test for transaction to
crash me more than a year ago.

>> From that reply, I concluded, again in the past, that they didn't really
Bruce> want to show anything objective.

Bruce> It seemed to present itself as objective, and that bothered me because
Bruce> it seemed so slanted to MySQL.

Could you describe why?  Is this just because MySQL follows ANSI SQL
and ODBC more than postgreSQL?

The whole idea of crash-me is to show which features a database
supports.  I can't understand how this could be 'slanted'?

We have also repeatedly stated that we accept patches for crash-me to
make it even better.  As we can't know everything about every
database, there is probably some things we have missed, but generally
crash-me should be VERY fair.

A note about this;  We have a lot of database vendors to help us with
making crash-me better, and we have got a lot of positive feedback!
From the postgreSQL developers we have however not got any help at
all!  All postgreSQL test have been done by Luke on his spare time.


>> 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.

Bruce> I have a clue, but I will admit I don't know a lot about what is going
Bruce> on in MySQL land.

>> 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
>> missing.

Bruce> We were not talking about every function, but the comparison chart
Bruce> seemed to consciously avoid mention of anything that would make MySQL
Bruce> look bad.

It would be nice if you could make a single example of this, instead
of just sayting that you have a clue.

Note that crash-me is not only made by us at TCX; There is other
persons from other SQL vendors involved.   We have not put any effort
to make MySQL 'look good';  crash-me only test and reports what a SQL
server supports.  How can this be 'slanted' ?

Bruce> That has been corrected quite a long time ago, I should say.

>> 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 limitations, if possible.  In short:  they are objective.
>>
>> So it would be nice, if try to be objective, too.

Bruce> Let me mention something that is a was very glad to see.  The MySQL
Bruce> manuals actually recommend PostreSQL for people who need transactions.
Bruce> Now, that takes humility.  That is clearly a sign of MySQL objectivity.

I have no problem recommending PostgreSQL for applications that suits
postgreSQL.  We are targeting different applications.  There is room
for us both on the database market.

The only thing that bothers me is that a lot of postgreSQL
developers/users seems very hostile against MySQL.  What's worse, they
speak 'knowingly' about things that they haven't a clue about.

<cut>

Bruce> Basically, if you looked at the comparison chart, it made anyone wonder
Bruce> why they would use anything but MySQL it made MySQL look so good.  But
Bruce> people are use other database.

Exactly :)

Seriously;  We have tried to make MySQL as compatible as possible with
a lot of major databases.  This will of course show in a comparison
that list what types, functions and functionality a database
supports.


>> > 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.

Bruce> Agreed.  I have a FAQ item on our web page that talks about comparison
Bruce> between ourselves and other databases at www.postgresql.org under Info
Bruce> Centra/Documentation.  I would be interested to hear any comments about
Bruce> it.  It does not mention any other database system, but generally talks
Bruce> about our strengths and weaknesses.

Why not add more test to crash-me (if you really think this is
missing), mail us the patches and then put a pointer to point to the
updated crash-me page?

Regards,
Monty