On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:43:27 -0600
"Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> The two most common reasons a company chooses postgresql over MySQL
> for these kinds of things are:
> They already have a real db server running pgsql in house. If
Any good reason for situation that don't have already big iron
deployed?
> > The fact that mysql runs on multiple engine
> > may be a pro on the *long* run.
>
> Seems to me each engine is a collection of compromises, most of
> which I don't want to make. It's like by breaking up their work
> power over so many different engine products, no one engine gets
> enough attention to be really outstanding. The closest thing to a
It could be.
> tuned, mature engine that can handle transactions is innodb, and
> Oracle bought that, so who knows where they're headed. The falcon
> table handler won't be done for at least another year or two (i.e.
> truly production ready).
Yep.
> > But still Postgres is a safe harbour
> > and it will be for some time to come.
> And it's not like it's just sitting still, waiting for MySQL to pass
> it by. The improvements in the last three years have been amazing
> in terms of performance and capability. and with 8.3 there are
> some very interesting performance enhancements for the subset of
> loads that fit in memory and have high update rates, something that
> mysql has traditionally beaten pgsql at.
I'd like to see more hosting offering pgsql and more applications
like drupal offering a more mature support to pgsql.
Hosting is getting cheaper and cheaper and more complex and demanding
applications can be put on hosting. Exactly the kind of application
that will benefit from running on postgres.
The more hosting on pgsql, the more developer, the more applications,
the more hosting...
I can think the same in regard to python vs. php.
--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it