John, you may not like it but we are in a competitive marketing environment with MySQL (even if both products are open source), and also with Oracle, SQL*Server, etc.
The MySQL folks will take every chance they get to point out instances where PostgreSQL performance is inferior to MySQL (and that's not unreasonable for them to do that), what's wrong with us pointing out their weaknesses as well? How many different threads have we had here or on -advocacy asking for real-world benchmarks between database products? I can think of several just in the last few months.
I know that as a result of this test when I rewrite this particular web app later this year I will be asking my ISP to make PostgreSQL 8.2 available, because this particular app requires a more robust database search engine than MySQL currently has.
--
Mike Nolan
On 1/20/07, John Meyer <john.l.meyer@gmail.com> wrote: What I think bothers me is this whole concept that if PostgreSQL is to
flourish, MySQL has to be beaten down. Folks, both products are free,
both can be used in the same shop (maybe not on the same computer if
your running them in production). Putting down MySQL will not make
PostgreSQL any better, or vice versa.
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Michael Nolan" <htfoot@gmail.com> writes:
>> select count(*) from memmast where memid in (select plr_rated_memid from
>> tnmt_plr where plr_eventid in ('200607163681');
>
>> This query takes about a second on PostgreSQL but takes OVER SEVEN MINUTES
>> on MySQL!
>
> Yeah, and we probably would have sucked about as badly before 7.4 or so.
> There's a long way from "having subselects" to being able to optimize
> them decently. AFAIK mysql is still at the "we've got subselects!"
> stage ...
>
> regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly