Обсуждение: The page: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_of_MySQL_2009 Is inappropiate
The page: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_of_MySQL_2009 Is inappropiate
От
fabio mariotti
Дата:
Dear Postgresql team,
I find this page very inappropriate.
The page:
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.
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. If you have found something that is incorrect, or misleading on that page we'd be happy to correct that - we do pride ourselves on giving fair, balanced and accurate information. However, I don't believe anyone here will apologise for advertising the benefits of our own product, on one of our websites. > 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. No, because that it's not the purpose of that page. It is intended as a technical and feature comparison. Benchmarks are often misleading as they tend to only be relevant to the specific application that is being tested, which is usually not what people are running. It is always advisable to benchmark your own application to get a realistic idea of how the different products will perform for you. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 4 November 2010 09:53, 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. In what sense is it inappropriate? This is the wiki on postgresql.org. It is not and does not purport to be a scientific journal. You're going to find some advocacy/advertising/promotion up there, and I don't see anything wrong with that. You would obviously expect any page on mysql.com to have a bias toward mysql, and likewise for microsoft.com and mssql, oracle.com and Oracle, and so on. Why were you astonished by a page on postgresql.org having a bias towards postgres? Cheers, BJ
fabio mariotti wrote: > 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. The "Benchmarks" section links to complete disclosure information about benchmarks run by SPEC--a neutral 3rd party. The amount of detail needed to properly describe a proper database benchmark is very large, so it's better to link to all of the details than to potentially misrepresent the facts by displaying only part of them. And it's not clear how much of that data related to those it would be appropriate for our Wiki to display a summary of too; it's SPEC's data, not ours. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support www.2ndQuadrant.us "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books
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
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Rob Wultsch <wultsch@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 3:53 PM, fabio mariotti <fab.mariotti@gmail.com> wrote: > If you do joins where covering indexes are very useful, then MySQL is > probably the correct database for you. s/joins/queries/ , but you get the point. -- Rob Wultsch wultsch@gmail.com