RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Post by Alexey Borz » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:32:59



Greetings!

    Well, I suppose everyone on this list will agree that Postgres is
superior over MySQL (or else they would have joined MySQL mailing list
*chuckle*). So I would just note one area where MySQL is considerably
stronger: PR.

    Every fart of MySQL developers gets noticed by high profile sites
(change of logo, "NASA switches from Oracle to MySQL" - remember this
one?, addition of Perl SPs, etc). I even remember "Gemini
table type" announcement on Slashdot when this table type was complete
vapourware. Besides, every comparison between PgSQL and MySQL draws
attention from MySQL employees and volunteer trolls (check talkbacks
on PHPBuilder, for example).

    I suppose PgSQL has to take a more active stance as well. Consider
"M$ vs Linux debates". Of course here both projects are Open Source so
the discussion should not be as heated... But I do think that
the statements in
http://www.mysql.com/doc/M/y/MySQL-PostgreSQL_features.html
should NOT go unanswered.

    So, I propose the (semi-)official featureset comparison, but from
Postgres users' POV. With a healthy dose of FUD as well, it is time for MySQL
folks to taste their own medicine...

    Things that, IMHO, should go into this comparison:
1. MySQL does not satisfy the semi-official definition of RDBMS -
"Codd's 12 rules", as it is in complete violation of rules 4 and 6
2. MySQL is not SQL-compliant as views and subselects are required by
entry-level SQL92 spec (I may be mistaken here, 'cause I have only the
Russian translation of Gruber's "SQL Instant Reference")
3. MySQL did not have a major release to fix their shortcomings
in several years, while Postgres evolves constantly. Moreover,
according to MySQL's "roadmap" the most requested features are pushed
back from mythical "4.0" to even more mythical "4.1" and "4.2"
4. It is very difficult to port to or from MySQL, 'cause the logic
that is usually incapsulated in DB should be rewritten in application.

    Of course I don't think this should go into PgSQL manual, it is
definitely not the place for such rants, but it should be published on
some of "official" PgSQL sites. And then submitted to /. and such. :]

    Well, I *can* take up this "project", if it will be approved here,
but must admit that the results should br reviewed by someone for whom
English is a native language. :]

--
Yours, Alexey V. Borzov, Webmaster of RDW.ru

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

 
 
 

RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Post by Digital Wok » Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:47:04


Knock yourself out.  I got jumped by a MySQL user on AZPHP for asking
another person why they had their Linux/PHP setup use an NT/MSSQL
database backend instead of Linux/PGSQL.  (IMHO, PGSQL is far closer to
the features desired by MSSQL developers.  Though I thought I heard
something about PGSQL procedures not being able to return recordsets.  I
hope I heard wrong.)


> Greetings!

>     Well, I suppose everyone on this list will agree that Postgres is
> superior over MySQL (or else they would have joined MySQL mailing list
> *chuckle*). So I would just note one area where MySQL is considerably
> stronger: PR.

>     Every fart of MySQL developers gets noticed by high profile sites
> (change of logo, "NASA switches from Oracle to MySQL" - remember this
> one?, addition of Perl SPs, etc). I even remember "Gemini
> table type" announcement on Slashdot when this table type was complete
> vapourware. Besides, every comparison between PgSQL and MySQL draws
> attention from MySQL employees and volunteer trolls (check talkbacks
> on PHPBuilder, for example).

>     I suppose PgSQL has to take a more active stance as well. Consider
> "M$ vs Linux debates". Of course here both projects are Open Source so
> the discussion should not be as heated... But I do think that
> the statements in
> http://www.mysql.com/doc/M/y/MySQL-PostgreSQL_features.html
> should NOT go unanswered.

>     So, I propose the (semi-)official featureset comparison, but from
> Postgres users' POV. With a healthy dose of FUD as well, it is time for MySQL
> folks to taste their own medicine...

>     Things that, IMHO, should go into this comparison:
> 1. MySQL does not satisfy the semi-official definition of RDBMS -
> "Codd's 12 rules", as it is in complete violation of rules 4 and 6
> 2. MySQL is not SQL-compliant as views and subselects are required by
> entry-level SQL92 spec (I may be mistaken here, 'cause I have only the
> Russian translation of Gruber's "SQL Instant Reference")
> 3. MySQL did not have a major release to fix their shortcomings
> in several years, while Postgres evolves constantly. Moreover,
> according to MySQL's "roadmap" the most requested features are pushed
> back from mythical "4.0" to even more mythical "4.1" and "4.2"
> 4. It is very difficult to port to or from MySQL, 'cause the logic
> that is usually incapsulated in DB should be rewritten in application.

>     Of course I don't think this should go into PgSQL manual, it is
> definitely not the place for such rants, but it should be published on
> some of "official" PgSQL sites. And then submitted to /. and such. :]

>     Well, I *can* take up this "project", if it will be approved here,
> but must admit that the results should br reviewed by someone for whom
> English is a native language. :]

> --
> Yours, Alexey V. Borzov, Webmaster of RDW.ru

> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command


 
 
 

RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Post by Justin Cli » Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:55:50


Hi guys,

I'm willing to put this on techdocs.postgresql.org, as long as I feel
it's been written for the right reasons.

i.e. I'm all for a document(s) which helps people needing a good, solid,
Open Source database needing transactions, ACID features, etc.  But, I'm
definitely not for a document which will incite PostgreSQL-vs-MySQL
warfare and not try and get people to choost the appropriate product(s).

:)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift


> Knock yourself out.  I got jumped by a MySQL user on AZPHP for asking
> another person why they had their Linux/PHP setup use an NT/MSSQL
> database backend instead of Linux/PGSQL.  (IMHO, PGSQL is far closer to
> the features desired by MSSQL developers.  Though I thought I heard
> something about PGSQL procedures not being able to return recordsets.  I
> hope I heard wrong.)


> > Greetings!

> >     Well, I suppose everyone on this list will agree that Postgres is
> > superior over MySQL (or else they would have joined MySQL mailing list
> > *chuckle*). So I would just note one area where MySQL is considerably
> > stronger: PR.

> >     Every fart of MySQL developers gets noticed by high profile sites
> > (change of logo, "NASA switches from Oracle to MySQL" - remember this
> > one?, addition of Perl SPs, etc). I even remember "Gemini
> > table type" announcement on Slashdot when this table type was complete
> > vapourware. Besides, every comparison between PgSQL and MySQL draws
> > attention from MySQL employees and volunteer trolls (check talkbacks
> > on PHPBuilder, for example).

> >     I suppose PgSQL has to take a more active stance as well. Consider
> > "M$ vs Linux debates". Of course here both projects are Open Source so
> > the discussion should not be as heated... But I do think that
> > the statements in
> > http://www.mysql.com/doc/M/y/MySQL-PostgreSQL_features.html
> > should NOT go unanswered.

> >     So, I propose the (semi-)official featureset comparison, but from
> > Postgres users' POV. With a healthy dose of FUD as well, it is time for MySQL
> > folks to taste their own medicine...

> >     Things that, IMHO, should go into this comparison:
> > 1. MySQL does not satisfy the semi-official definition of RDBMS -
> > "Codd's 12 rules", as it is in complete violation of rules 4 and 6
> > 2. MySQL is not SQL-compliant as views and subselects are required by
> > entry-level SQL92 spec (I may be mistaken here, 'cause I have only the
> > Russian translation of Gruber's "SQL Instant Reference")
> > 3. MySQL did not have a major release to fix their shortcomings
> > in several years, while Postgres evolves constantly. Moreover,
> > according to MySQL's "roadmap" the most requested features are pushed
> > back from mythical "4.0" to even more mythical "4.1" and "4.2"
> > 4. It is very difficult to port to or from MySQL, 'cause the logic
> > that is usually incapsulated in DB should be rewritten in application.

> >     Of course I don't think this should go into PgSQL manual, it is
> > definitely not the place for such rants, but it should be published on
> > some of "official" PgSQL sites. And then submitted to /. and such. :]

> >     Well, I *can* take up this "project", if it will be approved here,
> > but must admit that the results should br reviewed by someone for whom
> > English is a native language. :]

> > --
> > Yours, Alexey V. Borzov, Webmaster of RDW.ru

> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command


--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
   - Indira Gandhi

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

 
 
 

RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Post by Vince Vielhab » Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:27:38



> Hi guys,

> I'm willing to put this on techdocs.postgresql.org, as long as I feel
> it's been written for the right reasons.

> i.e. I'm all for a document(s) which helps people needing a good, solid,
> Open Source database needing transactions, ACID features, etc.  But, I'm
> definitely not for a document which will incite PostgreSQL-vs-MySQL
> warfare and not try and get people to choost the appropriate product(s).

Don't worry, it'll incite a riot no matter how accurate it is.

Vince.
--
==========================================================================

         56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
        Online Campground Directory    http://www.camping-usa.com
       Online Giftshop Superstore    http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------

 
 
 

RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Post by Doug McNaug » Thu, 30 Aug 2001 22:36:44




> > i.e. I'm all for a document(s) which helps people needing a good, solid,
> > Open Source database needing transactions, ACID features, etc.  But, I'm
> > definitely not for a document which will incite PostgreSQL-vs-MySQL
> > warfare and not try and get people to choost the appropriate product(s).

> Don't worry, it'll incite a riot no matter how accurate it is.

Yeah.  First thing to do is get it on Slashdot....

;)

-Doug
--
Free Dmitry Sklyarov!
http://www.freesklyarov.org/

We will return to our regularly scheduled signature shortly.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command

 
 
 

RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Post by Mitch Vincen » Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:38:52


Quote:> > I'm willing to put this on techdocs.postgresql.org, as long as I feel
> > it's been written for the right reasons.

> > i.e. I'm all for a document(s) which helps people needing a good, solid,
> > Open Source database needing transactions, ACID features, etc.  But, I'm
> > definitely not for a document which will incite PostgreSQL-vs-MySQL
> > warfare and not try and get people to choost the appropriate product(s).

> Don't worry, it'll incite a riot no matter how accurate it is.

    I'm not sure that much of that last MySQL write-up was inaccurate though
it's presentation was clearly meant to promote MySQL and not to compare
MySQL and PostgreSQL.. The MySQL guys want to emphasize MySQL's strong
points and downplay it's weak ones.. That's good marketing any way you look
at it but I don't think that such a document is little more than marketing
propeganda. I didn't see any mention of what was coming up in PostgreSQL 8,
though they sure wanted everyone to know what would be in MySQL 4..... Note
that I would say the same thing about a document written with a PostgreSQL
bias if it was written in the same way that this document was...

-Mitch

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------

 
 
 

RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Post by David Fo » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 04:05:00



>Hi guys,

>I'm willing to put this on techdocs.postgresql.org, as long as I feel
>it's been written for the right reasons.

>i.e. I'm all for a document(s) which helps people needing a good, solid,
>Open Source database needing transactions, ACID features, etc.  But, I'm
>definitely not for a document which will incite PostgreSQL-vs-MySQL
>warfare and not try and get people to choost the appropriate product(s).

>:)

>Regards and best wishes,

>Justin Clift

Make it represent the pure facts, make both sides 'look good', where
there is deficiency, report the roadmap for fixing the deficiency.  Note
well the difference between deficiency and differing opinions as to how
something should be done.

-d

--

Quote:>:>

I may have the information you need and I may choose only HTML.  It's up to you.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

 
 
 

RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Post by Peter Eisentra » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 04:41:19


Quote:Alexey Borzov writes:
>     I suppose PgSQL has to take a more active stance as well. Consider
> "M$ vs Linux debates". Of course here both projects are Open Source so
> the discussion should not be as heated... But I do think that
> the statements in
> http://www.mysql.com/doc/M/y/MySQL-PostgreSQL_features.html
> should NOT go unanswered.

Okay, I answered them:

http://webmail.postgresql.org/~petere/comparison.html

(The domain should move to www.ca.postgresql.org in the next few days.
This is just a temporary location while the site meisters move things
around.)

I tried to be reasonable and biased at the same time. ;-)

This article does not go into the advantages of PostgreSQL, since that's
already done elsewhere, such as here:

http://www.ca.postgresql.org/features.html

--

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------

 
 
 

RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Post by Sam Treg » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 05:31:16



> Okay, I answered them:

> http://webmail.postgresql.org/~petere/comparison.html

Perhaps you should add some links to PostgreSQL's full-text searching
solutions?  It's hard to evaluate without some reference to what you're
talking about.

-sam

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command

 
 
 

RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Post by Robert J. Sanford, Jr » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 05:49:39


the following link is a good article on the real-world,
multi-user performance of mysql and postgres. tim perdue
ported source forge from mysql to postgre and performed a
series of tests against the source forge code and database.
one chart shows postgres scaling up to 100 concurrent users
and serving pages very nicely while mysql craters at about
20.

enjoy!

rjsjr

http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20001112.php3

> -----Original Message-----


> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 3:01 PM
> To: Peter Eisentraut

> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.


> > Okay, I answered them:

> > http://webmail.postgresql.org/~petere/comparison.html

> Perhaps you should add some links to PostgreSQL's full-text
> searching
> solutions?  It's hard to evaluate without some reference to
> what you're
> talking about.

> -sam

> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command

 
 
 

RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Post by Alvaro Herre » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 05:57:46



> Alexey Borzov writes:

> >     I suppose PgSQL has to take a more active stance as well. Consider
> > "M$ vs Linux debates". Of course here both projects are Open Source so
> > the discussion should not be as heated... But I do think that
> > the statements in
> > http://www.mysql.com/doc/M/y/MySQL-PostgreSQL_features.html
> > should NOT go unanswered.

> Okay, I answered them:

> http://webmail.postgresql.org/~petere/comparison.html

Hmm... reading it suddenly I found that can't understand something. If
table bigger than 1 GB are split in different files, there is no "one
file per table". In that case, symlinking is not that safe... or is it?

--

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

 
 
 

RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Post by Jeff Eckerman » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 06:51:54


I think the quotes from Jan Wieck may be hard to understand, or even
misleading, to a reader who did not see them in the context of the
discussion in which they were written.  They contain plenty of irony
(sarcasm?), which when read literally, means something quite different from
what was intended.  Since the points made are valuable, perhaps they could
be restated in the body of the text instead?
----- Original Message -----



Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.


> > Okay, I answered them:

> > http://webmail.postgresql.org/~petere/comparison.html

> Perhaps you should add some links to PostgreSQL's full-text searching
> solutions?  It's hard to evaluate without some reference to what you're
> talking about.

> -sam

> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command


 
 
 

RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Post by Otto Hir » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:03:02


Quote:> ...
> ... mysql v postgres
> ...

In a book on marketing warfare (maybe the one
by Ries & Trout) there was a question about who
was the competitor:

You own a hotel on a small desert island across
the street from another hotel.  The question is
are they your real threat as a competitor and
should you try to drive them down, maybe out of
business?  The real competitor is the other,
next, nearest "island" 300 miles away - and not
the hotel across the street.  If either of the
hotels go out, the whole island economy falters
and you may go with it.  What you really want
is to compete against the other island.  If the
business of the hotel across the street goes up,
then your own business is like to grow also.
The issue in this case is who is the real,
significant competitor.

It reminds me about unix.  Let see, is it
Sun or HP that has the better unix.  Opps, how
about IBM, or Sony, NEC, FreeBSD, NetBSD,
SCO, or ...  and opps I forgot Linux, oh how
could I do that?  And it would be better
to have start up run scripts where?, what is
the better x-type windowing system?, ...

But, MSDOS was MSDOS, was MSDOS...
and MS Windows was MS Windows, is MS Windows

So who is the real competitor -
HP v Sun v Ibm v ... all unix and all slightly
different in such miniscule amounts (I'll probably
get flamed for that...)
or
unix v MS Windows...
What would have happened if the unix vendors
laid down their NIH and joined each other?

So who is the real, important competitor?
Is it so much important to "compete"
between mysql and postgres, or is it more
important to compete with the proprietary
databases.  They all must laugh themselves
silly at times.

But I tell you that there would be a WHOLE
lot more concern if the HUGE amount of brains
and talent on both these projects all laid
down their editors, compilers, os's, and their
deeply entrenched NIH attitude and join
forces with each other.  What would that be
like?  Is it possible?  So you feel like
competing, then compete against your own
self to ask what you could learn from each
other, then change direction and compete
against your COMMON competitor - the
proprietary databases.

Just some rambling thoughts - and certainly
not to try and tit-for-tat war.

Regards,

.. Otto

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command

 
 
 

RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Post by Johann Zuschla » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:44:10



>Okay, I answered them:

>http://webmail.postgresql.org/~petere/comparison.html

Ok, sounds good. I hope that will calm down the discussion.

regards

Johann Zuschlag

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate

message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

 
 
 

RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Post by Martijn van Oosterho » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:53:29



> Alexey Borzov writes:
> Okay, I answered them:

> http://webmail.postgresql.org/~petere/comparison.html

In that document you say:

Quote:> By the way, PostgreSQL does support multiple storage managers; not as
> easily today as in the early days, but that is mostly due to the fact that
> no one ever wanted to replace the current one.

Does this mean that in the 7.1 tree one could include the storage manager
for 7.0, thus being able to read both types, or is it more complicated than
that?

--

http://svana.org/kleptog/

Quote:> It would be nice if someone came up with a certification system that
> actually separated those who can barely regurgitate what they crammed over
> the last few weeks from those who command secret ninja networking powers.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------

 
 
 

1. RFC: PostgreSQL and MySQL comparison.

Greetings, Peter!


PE> Okay, I answered them:

PE> http://webmail.postgresql.org/~petere/comparison.html

    Looks good, but it's not exactly what I've had in mind. You see it
    is too often considered that if someone has to justify oneself, he
    is automatically guilty. I want to write an article that would
    make MySQL's developers justify themselves...
    Besides, one has to read the MySQL's article *before* this just to
    understand what's this all about...

    BTW, can I use parts of your answers in my work?

    And, a question to SQL standard gurus: is it necessary for a DBMS
    to implement subqueries and views to be considered entry-level
    SQL92 compliant.
    Besides, is there any document which has all PostgreSQL's
    deviations from standard in one place?

PE> I tried to be reasonable and biased at the same time. ;-)

PE> This article does not go into the advantages of PostgreSQL, since that's
PE> already done elsewhere, such as here:

PE> http://www.ca.postgresql.org/features.html

--
Yours, Alexey V. Borzov, Webmaster of RDW.ru

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate

message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

2. Making an ARRAY of Fields and working with it

3. Oracle vs PostgreSQL vs MySQL vs mSQL : COMPARISON

4. Specifying an INDEX in a SELECT statement

5. Feature comparison between Postgresql, Oracle and Mysql ?

6. files to include for programming DTS objects on a client computer

7. PostgreSQL in Comparison to mySQL

8. Columns in tables

9. Feature comparison between Postgresql, Oracle and Mysql ?

10. RFC: User reviews of PostgreSQL RI functionality

11. WAS: PostgreSQL Replication Server? IS: Zend comparison chart

12. WAS: PostgreSQL Replication Server? IS: Zend comparison

13. PostgreSQL on Linux and Solaris comparison