Why is Postgres so much better than MySQL? -- was Re: MySQL -- was mysql backup quesiton

["Fred @ Planetary Server" <user=1474@nabble.blu.org>]

 [hidden email] wrote: 
> This is a very important discussion, IMHO so, and I know I'm at least 
> partially responsible, lets try to keep it polite. OK? 
>   
As always. 
>> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 23:43 -0500, Mark Woodward wrote: 
>> ... 
>>     
>>> Like any high performance product, if you never push it or never compare 
>>> it, you won't notice the difference. A Porsche doesn't feel much 
>>> different than a Volkswagen sitting in a garage. 
>>> 
>>> MySQL does not support SQL well enough to create really efficient 
>>> queries. MySQL's query analyzer does not do a very good job at mapping a 
>>> query to an access plan. When the amount of data you wish to access is 
>>> negligible these things are also negligible.  When the amount of data is 
>>> non-trivial, MySQL is catastrophic. 
>>> 
>>> After that, MySQL's performance in a high volume site is abysmal. As 
>>> long as it is read-only, you are fine. If you start adding table 
>>> updates, inserts, or deletes MySQL's performance profile crumbles. Why 
>>> do you think you see so many "Can't access database" messages from MySQL 
>>> sites that have been slashdotted? 
>>>       
>> It never cease to amaze me about the bad claims of MySQL performance. I 
>> work at a company that typically has 30,000 - 50,000 simultaneous users 
>> on their site in a social network setting. High reads, high writes, on 
>> MySQL 4.x. Performance is great. 
>>     
> 
> What does that translate to in regards to hits? What kinds of queries do 
> you use? Do you use MySQL as the session manager? 
>