MySQL Discussion

[markw-FJ05HQ0HCKaWd6l5hS35sQ at public.gmane.org (markw-FJ05HQ0HCKaWd6l5hS35sQ at public.gmane.org)]

> markw-FJ05HQ0HCKaWd6l5hS35sQ at public.gmane.org wrote:
>> For anyone interested, I strongly suggest some research.
>
> I did do a bit of searching for articles comparing MySQL with
> PostgreSQL, seeing as that is the mostly likely alternative to be used
> by an open source project that needs a database server (as opposed to a
> local database, where SQLite might be the pick):
>
> http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mysql/article.php/3288951 (2003)
> http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/20743 (2004)
> http://monstera.man.poznan.pl/wiki/index.php/Mysql_vs_postgres (2005)
>
> but all I could find was stuff from several years ago that pre-dates the
> introduction of many significant features in MySQL.
>
> Anyone find better resources?

Don't read a comparison of A vs B. You only get powerpoint bullet items
and still no depth of understanding of the issues.

Read some detailed text about database theory that discusses the various
algorithms for accessing data that does not focus on any single database.
Get a grip on the whole of the subject. You need to learn enough to see
the various "A vs B" for what they are and confidently agree or disagree
with their conclusions.

>
>
>> ...Oracle or PostreSQL, you will NEVER again
>> look at MySQL the same way.
>
> I haven't had occasion to work with PostgreSQL, but spent several years
> working with Oracle after many years working with Sybase, and while the
> MySQL of 5 years ago wouldn't cut it for serious database needs, for
> light usage it was far more enjoyable to work with. And in the last 5
> years it has been steadily bolting on enterprise features. Whether they
> perform well is another matter.

I can't imagine any work that would "enjoyable" using MySQL. I've used too
many database systems that are far more complete and usable.





-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.