On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Bill Moran wrote:
> Consider the source. If he chose to write for MySQL instead of PostgreSQL,
> he probably isn't up to speed on what's going on with PostgreSQL.
Bill,
It's 'they' rather than 'he,' but your point is still valid.
> PostgreSQL is anything but behind on both performance and features.
This is what I thought. Thank you for confirming.
> MySQL's features and performance have still not caught up with PostgreSQL.
> MySQL's ability to run benchmarks really fast has exceeded most other
> databases. Have a gander at the following link (for example):
> http://blog.page2rss.com/2007/01/postgresql-vs-mysql-performance.html
I read this a few weeks ago when someone posted the URL to the list. Every
installation and use is different enough from all the others to make
generalizations inappropriate.
Regardless, when anyone designs what is intended to be a broadly used
business application _I_ belive that it should be designed from the very
beginning to use any -- or most -- readily available database engines, if
such is needed in the application. Why cut yourself off from a large segment
of the market, even if the application is F/OSS? That just does not make
business sense. However, this seems to be what every CRM/SFA[1]
vendor/project team but one has choosen to do. The one exception uses
postgres, but they bundle their application with 8.0.something, and we'd
have to use both an earlier and different installation from what we already
have here. That doesn't make business sense, either.
> I could be wrong, but I expect that a long thread is inevitable.
I hope that you are wrong. Preaching to the choir here is not going to
make any difference to the folks who write these other applcations. So,
repeating all the 'mine's bigger than yours' arguments will not convince
anyone differently. :-)
Many thanks,
Rich
--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. | The Environmental Permitting
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. | Accelerator(TM)
<http://www.appl-ecosys.com> Voice: 503-667-4517 Fax: 503-667-8863