IMO that they choiced MySQL because of no knowledge
about PostgreSQL and about valid database designs.
Just garbage of data for SELECTing with minimal efforts
on data integrity and database server programming (ala
typical PHP project).
Sorry :-)
2010/11/9 Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Vick Khera <vivek@xxxxxxxxx> writes:I don't have enough operational experience with mysql to speak to how
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Also, my understanding is that if you go way back on the PostgreSQL timeline to versions 6 and earliest 7.x, it was a little shaky. (I started with 7.3 or 7.4, and it has been rock solid.)
> In those same times, mysql was also, um, other than rock solid.
reliable it was back in the day. ÂWhat it *did* have over postgres back
then was speed. ÂIt was a whole lot faster, particularly on the sort of
single-stream-of-simple-queries cases that people who don't know
databases are likely to set up as benchmarks. Â(mysql still beats us on
cases like that, though not by as much.) ÂI think that drove quite a
few early adoption decisions, and now folks are locked in; the cost of
conversion outweighs the (perceived) benefits.
           Âregards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
// Dmitriy.
