mysql vs. postgresql

[Tom Achtenberg]

You are wrong about MS not having a mid range database.  Visual FoxPro is
alive and well and fills this market very well.  It has most of the features
the top level databases have.  VFP 8 is about to be released.


-----Original Message-----
From: plug-discuss-admin@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
[mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us]On Behalf Of Trent
Shipley
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 12:57 AM
To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
Subject: Re: mysql vs. postgresql


On Saturday 2003-06-14 22:26, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 22:05, Trent Shipley wrote:
> > Another item to take into consideration is market share.
> >
> > Most of the time it is wiser to use the most popular application and not
> > the best.



> If this is the criteria.  Please pickup Windows 2000 and MSSQL Server.
> It is FAR more widely used.

They are *VERY* good products.  Furthermore, as a user of both MS products
and
Linux-and-friends the MS products have the advantage of user-interfaces that
are degrees of magnitude better than the freeware versions.

The main problem of MS in comparison to gratis-ware is the initial price
point.

If you can afford them, the big commercial databases (in my book these are
Oracle, DB2 and MS SQL Server) are a class above the freeware databases.


Enterprise level databases (Terrabytes, $20K and up.):

Top:
Oracle, DB2.  Superior flexibility.  (Note: SAP claims this is a *draw
back*.
These products are *too* complex.)

Second tier (Only because of limited features):
MS SQL Server.  (Transact*SQL is a glorified scripting language.  Limited or
non-existent OO attributes.  NB! It looks like SAP-DB with a GPL licence may
be technically competitive.  However, limited market penetration may mean
that the cost to run SAP-DB could exceed those of SQL Server.  Not
surprisingly SAP's attitude toward its database is KISS.  A database is
where
you put data used by middle-ware.  A DB should store and retrieve
data--that's it.  Any complexity goes in business logic implemented by a
middle-ware product ... like SAP.)


Mid-level databases (100's of Gigabytes, max: Free, MySQL is dual licensed.
I'm not certain how much the non-GPL EULA costs.):

-- MySQL is fast, cheap, and simple to a fault.  It is widely used.  It is
well supported and documented.  It seems to be gaining market share.  Rumors
of a deal with SAP for SAP-DB technology may result in a partial challenge
to
MS SQL Server.  Nevertheless, expect SQL Server to be a better option for
most customers because MS can throw money at ease-of-use.

(Remember my fellow gear-heads, for 99% of our fellow travelers software is
a
means to an end.  Hard to use software is nearly equivalent to useless
software.  Yes, you can hire an expert, but no one likes doing that.  [I
hate
taking my car to the shop, for example.])


-- Postgresql is reliable, cheap, and has an obscenely complex feature set.
(I have a personal love affair with this software.)  For better or worse,
Postgres' heritage as a platform for academic database research is an
organic
part of the product.  A resulting major annoyance is that you have limited
tuning knobs.  (Tuning a database is not *academically* interesting.)  All
the objects for a named 'database' have to live on a single unix path-node.
Forget about putting indexes and tables on different disks or
disk-controlers.   Historically, security for Postgres has also been
somewhat
lax.  Again, not a concern for grad-school developers.

It is unlikely Postgres lacks something you need.  More likely what you need
probably lacks Postgres.  Limited market share often means some critical
(comercial) killer app has no interface to Postgress.  (In fact, many killer
apps only interface with the major databases.  It is by no means uncommon to
find that some business critical application has been built to work ONLY
with
MS SQL Server.)



>From a biz perspective MySQL is to be prefered to Postgresql.  However, at

this point MySQL may still lack critical features (not least being
extesibility).   IF MySQL passes feasibility analysis use it instead of
Postgres (for reasons of economics and business, *not* engineering.)


Note that MS has no $5000 database in the mid-range market.  This means
Access
users get heart-attack sized sticker shock when they realize they've
outgrown
their MS-Office based tools.


Tiny databases [AKA toys] (A few gigabytes max.  Ideally, no more than one
user at a time.  Hundreds of dollars.):

Access: Not bad given what it is designed to do.  Tends to corupt its
datafiles, but if your SysAdmin is good about backups resulting losses are
usually well inside the acceptable range.  The natural upgrade path is to
MS-SQL, resulting in sticker-shock and learning-curve hell.  A product
mid-way between Access and MS-SQL is desperately needed.  Due to obscene
levels of market penetration Access databases can be migrated to nearly
every
product on the market.

Paradox:  Sadly, nearly dead.  Someone talk IBM or SUN into buying this
Borland product and releasing it on Linux, preferably under GPL.

The freeware world has no real file-by-file personal database product.  This
is often a major objection to OpenOffice.org.  True, a intermediate level
guru can install Postgress on a laptop, but the whole point of the
Access/Paradox type product is to minimize the need for expert level
knowledge.
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003