Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison
От | Michael Widenius |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 14331.59615.814251.133506@monty.pp.sci.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison
(Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Hi! <cut> Bruce> I stated many times that I was going on old information, because that is Bruce> the only information I have. Maybe that is unfair, maybe not, but that Bruce> is the only thing I can base my opinions on. Wouldn't it have been better to first check up things before posting ? Bruce> I can perhaps retrieve the old e-mail stating the crashme maintainer Bruce> didn't know how to test for transactions. At the same time, the test Bruce> did an amazingly bizarre UPDATE SET x = x + 1 on a table with unique Bruce> indexes, and reported that our transactions were not atomic. Well, I Bruce> figure if the person could come up with that test, they should be able Bruce> to test for transactions. It was I that asked for the help to check for transactions a long time ago (and I got help from Luuk to make this in a way that should be portable to most sql servers). Note however that the above test must be supported by a transaction system to be fully transactional. Almost all other databases (except postgreSQL) that supports transactions, can handle the UPDATE test. Bruce> A person reading that would think, "Well MySQL doesn't have Bruce> transactions, and PostgreSQL's transactions are not atomic, so they must Bruce> have the same limitations." Sorry to say, but the above is true. There was some discussion about this on the postgreSQL list about fixing this bug, but they concluded that it was too hard to fix so they decided to let it be. Bruce> This is far from true, but when we tried to Bruce> have it corrected, we got a shrug, "Gee, how do I test for Bruce> transactions." Come on, that is not believable. Who did try to get a correction? No one contacted me above it! We did add the transaction test very early, but the test you mention is independent of this test! This tests if the database server support atomic transactions, which is VERY important in some cases. Bruce> Is that old news, maybe. Did it make me feel like the crashme test Bruce> wasn't interested in the truth, yes. Did make me avoid more work on Bruce> improving crashme, yes. Your comment reflects one that I have got from many postgreSQL developers; You seem to think that everyone is against postgreSQL and you take it personally when postgreSQL can't handle something. (I have talked with a couple of resonable postgreSQL developers, so I know that the above doesn't hold for everyone, but the major part of the mail I get from postgreSQL developers are not very resonable :() The simple truth is that postgreSQL can't handle atomic transactions, as required by ANSI SQL. One can however argue that this is not that important, but this is a whole different story! To take it from the beginning: The whole idea of crash-me is to find things that a database support and doesn't support, to make it easier to write applications for it. This makes it VERY important to find all possible limitations for a database. Doesn't this sound reasonable ? A last note about this topic: I got the query used in crash-me from a SQL book that describes how transactions works... >> 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. Bruce> Well, we are all volunteers, and the above experience was enough to make Bruce> us shy away from wasting any time trying to work on it. Also, MySQL is Bruce> backed by a company, while we are all volunteers, so there is a certain Bruce> suspicion that the crashme test has a certain monetary incentive behind Bruce> it. This suspicion may be false, but we have it none-the-less. We at TCX don't get any money from providing crash-me or improving the benchmarks result for postgreSQL, but have still done this as a free service. We know that the postgreSQL developers has used crash-me to make postgreSQL more bug free and we are very happy about this too. We also do offer a lot of free support and help for MySQL and most MySQL usage is free. I wouldn't compare us with 'an evil emporium', just because we charge for a MySQL license if you bundle MySQL with an application that is not free. 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. Bruce> I think your impression is correct. There is a hostile atmosphere about Bruce> MySQL. Part of it was that, in the past, we were worked like crazy, and Bruce> no was taking serious interest in PostgreSQL. They were all talking Bruce> about MySQL. Now, in the past 1 1/2 years, we are getting serious Bruce> consideration. I don't think MySQL had anything to do with that(except Bruce> being a good product that people liked), but some also felt that the Bruce> crashme test was made to continue that misinformation about PostgreSQL. I think it's a pity that you feel hostile to MySQL just because you think you deserve better. We on the other hand has tried to help postgreSQL as much as we can by making it look better than it would otherwise have done, by putting a lot of extra efforts in providing crash-me information for postgreSQL and tuning the benchmarks for postgreSQL. I still don't know about a single thing that crash-me have reported wrong about postgreSQL that hasn't been fixed as soon as it has been brought to our attention. As you may have seen on the postgreSQL list, crash-me was actually right that postgreSQL didn't support -- comments and HAVING as required by ANSI SQL. Isn't it nice that we help you fix your bugs? Bruce> No sense in trying to hide our feelings on this. Keeping quiet and Bruce> stewing about it is not going to help. We might as well say how we feel Bruce> so MySQL can know our motivations. We certainly would rather not feel Bruce> the way we do. I really hope you can grow out of this. There is so much we can do together to make both products better! Regards, Monty
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: