mysql vs. postgresql

[Derek Neighbors]

Mike Starke said:
> I have read many articles, but none appear to be up-to-date.
> They all complain about mysql not having this and that. That
> was 2 versions ago.

A few things about this.  The data is your life blood.  Generally you want
highly stable stuff.  While MySQL has added a lot of features, remember
you often to have run the latest and greatest to get them and because of
that don't expect them to be well tested in production just yet.

That's not to say they don't work, but they haven't had the luxury of
being supported for many releases in production and being refined.

> Again, intelligent recent unbiased comparisons is what I am looking for.
> I also want to keep in mind the average installation is not
> handling the transactions one see's down there at NASDAQ:
> I am thinking of a db server for a small company (50-250 people),
> business apps (GNUe) and web work (apache/perl|php).

I would say business apps I would use Postgres, Firebird or SAP-DB (see
below for comments) and for web work I would use MySQL.  Remember MySQL is
lightning fast, but only if you don't use any of the features necessary
for business computing.  As soon as you add the features those articles
mentioned lacking, it means you are changing the 'back end'.  In doing so
you lose nearly all of the speed advantage.

The note about SAP-DB, for those that do not know.  SAP-DB has given
distribution writes to MySQL for the SAP-DB.  MySQL has conceded they
don't have what it takes to write an Enterprise database.  So they are
repacking SAP-DB.  They plan to make it as a pluggable backend to MySQL
just like the other backends.

I won't go on and on and everyone has their favorites.  I will say I think
MySQL is not a serious business application database, but Postres,
Firebird, SAP-DB (and prop db's like DB2, Informix, Oracle) all fit the
bill nicely.  To me it comes down to 'pick the best tool for the job'.

-derek