Terence wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Stupid question, but what does MySQL bring to the equation? Why not
just use PostgreSQL in the first place?
Simplicity.
Simplicity is in the eye of the beholder. Which of a dozen or so
different storage engines should I use for table X? If I mix and match
these table types, how will the database behave?
Personally I find simplicity to be in adherence to the SQL standard as
closely as possible. Each database has their extensions, but every time
I use MySQL it grates my teeth how much non-standard stuff I have to
'relearn', making the experience anything *but* simple.
A huge user base.
While I would love PostgreSQL to be more widely used, I don't think
something so ephemeral is necessarily something they "bring to the
table". Rather than shoehorn PostgreSQL into MySQL, having good
migration tools seems to be the key here. After all, which of these
widely used products were replaced, and which were expanded with outside
technology:
Lotus 1-2-3
Wordperfect
IBM PC
etc
No one is questioning that pg is a superior product :)
As long as PostgreSQL manages to remain an active project with enough
contributors to compete on features and/or performance, it doesn't need
to attract any more attention than it already does, IMO. Owning a
company that relies on PostgreSQL I see some value in more people being
experienced with the database when it comes time to hire a DBA, but
beyond that, it only needs to be a superior product.
Of course when someone /does/ know PostgreSQL, it's usually a sign that
they have more than a passing familiarity. I wonder how many MySQL
admins are on the same level of proficiency as Windows admins due to
ubiquitity.
Gregory Wood
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
