Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison

Wow, where do I start with this?

> 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.

I stated many times that I was going on old information, because that is
the only information I have.  Maybe that is unfair, maybe not, but that
is the only thing I can base my opinions on.

I can perhaps retrieve the old e-mail stating the crashme maintainer
didn't know how to test for transactions.  At the same time, the test
did an amazingly bizarre UPDATE SET x = x + 1 on a table with unique
indexes, and reported that our transactions were not atomic.  Well, I
figure if the person could come up with that test, they should be able
to test for transactions.

A person reading that would think, "Well MySQL doesn't have
transactions, and PostgreSQL's transactions are not atomic, so they must
have the same limitations."  This is far from true, but when we tried to
have it corrected, we got a shrug, "Gee, how do I test for
transactions."   Come on, that is not believable.

Is that old news, maybe.  Did it make me feel like the crashme test
wasn't interested in the truth, yes.  Did make me avoid more work on
improving crashme, yes.

> 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.

Well, we are all volunteers, and the above experience was enough to make
us shy away from wasting any time trying to work on it.  Also, MySQL is
backed by a company, while we are all volunteers, so there is a certain
suspicion that the crashme test has a certain monetary incentive behind
it.  This suspicion may be false, but we have it none-the-less.


> 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.

I think your impression is correct.  There is a hostile atmosphere about
MySQL.  Part of it was that, in the past, we were worked like crazy, and
no was taking serious interest in PostgreSQL.  They were all talking
about MySQL.  Now, in the past 1 1/2 years, we are getting serious
consideration.  I don't think MySQL had anything to do with that(except
being a good product that people liked), but some also felt that the
crashme test was made to continue that misinformation about PostgreSQL.

No sense in trying to hide our feelings on this.  Keeping quiet and
stewing about it is not going to help.  We might as well say how we feel
so MySQL can know our motivations.  We certainly would rather not feel
the way we do.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026