> In short, MySQL offered the appearance of ease of use, which meant you > didn't need a DBA or even, really, to read the manual. For most > people it was good enough. It turned out that once you started trying > to scale it, you really did need all those features that the MySQL > 3.2.3 and earlier manuals said nobody would ever actually need; but by > the time you found that out, you already had a sunk cost in your > development so far, and MySQL's dialect of SQL was even stranger than > Oracle's so it was hard to move away from MySQL. I think that's a lot of it. A majority of my experience with it is from the Internet "boom" of the late 90's - we used it because it was sloppy. Because it was sloppy, it was easy - it let you concentrate a lot more on the *quantity* of the code, rather than the *quality*. I don't know if it's still as sloppy (forgiving or loose), but I do know that data integrity had/has taken a back seat to speed and ease of use for a long time. Or at least it had when I was using a lot more of it (really? i can do an INSERT statement, and because the type is wrong it'll just say it was successful but silently fail? really?). Now, I'll usually replace a piece of application software that requires MySQL, rather than use MySQL over PostgreSQL. Shame on open-source app developers that write only for MySQL. Benny -- "The problem with quotes on the internet is that it's very hard to verify their authenticity." -- Abraham Lincoln -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
