MySQL vs PostgreSQL (was "RE: MySQL install from source??")

[mike cullerton]

On Wednesday, April 3, 2002, at 10:14 AM, Pete Peters wrote:

> Chris,
>
> First of all, thanks for the ACID test link. Very interesting.
>
> I eventually plan to install one of those database programs on my 
> Linux box
> for my own learning and edification. I'm curious. Would you consider 
> MySQL
> vs PostgreSQL similar to MS Access vs MS SQL or Filemaker vs 4D?

well, since no one else seems willing to standup for mysql, i will.

mysql is sql, not filemaker or access. it is a relational database. 
sure, it uses files to store the data on the server, but you have to 
store the data somehow.

quoting from the first paragraph of mysql's manual:

"The MySQL (TM) software delivers a very fast, multi-threaded, 
multi-user, and robust SQL (Structured Query Language) database 
server. MySQL Server is intended for mission-critical, heavy load 
production systems as well as for embedding into mass-deployed 
software."

mysql can do anything you want it to, and can probably do it faster 
than any other database out there. mysql is designed for speed, to 
quickly get information out so you can build dynamic web pages. i'm 
no db guru, or snob, but most people don't need atomicity or 
rollback. they want to produce web pages.

all my sites use mysql. some peppered all day with hundreds of 
thousands of records being replicated over 4 machines. no problems. 
many of the queries join multiple tables together without any 
slowness. (btw, postgres can't do replication)

mysql rocks.

that being said, i have (close) friends who use postgres. it works 
for them. they are nice people. i still like them.

just don't pass fud around about mysql.