On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 3:53 PM, fabio mariotti <fab.mariotti@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Postgresql team,
> I find this page very inappropriate.
> The page:
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_of_MySQL_2009
> The title is an advertisement. Could have been PostgreSQL versus MySQL/2009.
> I did not read the page for a single reason: just by scrawling, moving the
> page up an down
> I didn't see a number or a graph. There is even a section named speed: no
> numbers.
> Even a subsection called: Benchmarks. No numbers again.
> Please read your own wiki: Benchmarks. This is advertisement.
> But you might want to know how I got to the page. I was trying to sell
> alternatives to MS
> products. I included postgresql within the others (MySQL, Oracle). Honestly:
> never again.
> I do understand that it might be a monopole, but it does just work better.
> Not faster.
> Such a document from postgresql wiki is not really inviting.
> Best
> F
> PS:
> I saved the page, just in case. But please: Check the benchmarks section.
This page has value. What would be more valuable would be checklist to
point you to one or the other. For example:
If you need to do GIS, then PG is probably the correct database for you.
If you need to do fault tolerant multi-master synchronous replication,
then MySQL Cluster is probably the correct database for you.
If you need to do joins where merge/hash joins are very useful, then
PG is probably the correct database for you.
If you do joins where covering indexes are very useful, then MySQL is
probably the correct database for you.
Please keep in mind that for many (most?) use cases either system
works perfectly well. What will often be as important or more
important than the underlying technology is having staff that can run
the system effectively.
--
Rob Wultsch
wultsch@gmail.com