Don't let the title of this article mislead you. This is not a review of the two RDBMS, rather a comment on the article "PostgreSQL vs MySQL - Comparative Review" which has been forwarded to the PostgreSQL advocacy list.
I believe that, when doing this kind of reviews, we all must be careful. The most important thing is that enough information on both systems must be gathered in advance, in order to come up with an objective review.
Once I read the article, I have tried to post a comment, but I never saw my post displayed. This is why I decided to write something on my personal blog.
I believe that, when doing this kind of reviews, we all must be careful. The most important thing is that enough information on both systems must be gathered in advance, in order to come up with an objective review.
Once I read the article, I have tried to post a comment, but I never saw my post displayed. This is why I decided to write something on my personal blog.
First, I want to comment the "Stability" section. Although this article has been published today (Aug 31, 2009), the writer says: "The PostgreSQL 6.x series and those released before it suffered from
stability issue. Random disconnects, core dumps and memory leaks were
common with these series. However, the PostgreSQL 7.x series showed
significant improvement in terms of stability."
It is worth saying that current PostgreSQL's version is 8.4. Latest PostgreSQL 6.x is version 6.5.3, which was released in October 1999. Ten years ago. PostgreSQL 7.x is currently unsupported. PostgreSQL 7.0 started in 2000. PostgreSQL 7.1 in 2001, versions 7.2 and 7.3 in 2002 and 7.4 in 2003. PostgreSQL 8.0 came out in 2005, almost 5 years ago!
Once you have taken into account these notes, it is exciting to read the conclusion: "However, the advent of version PostgreSQL 8.x shows that it's going though a process of continuous improvement."
My question is: Why in 2009 would you write a technical review of a product by totally ignoring the last 5 years of evolution of a product? By using a similar approach, I could write a comparison review of PostgreSQL by considering MySQL 3.23 (which I loved, by the way!).
Anyway, about the "SQL standard" compliance, I personally do not understand why it is important to point out that MySQL runs on almost any platform.
In the "Platforms" section, what does exactly mean that "MySQL runs better on Windows than PostgreSQL"? Also, have you considered PostgreSQL 8.x or PostgreSQL 6 or 7 with Cygwin?
I skip the rest sections, even though they are quite "attractive".
However, IMHO, the best part though is the large objects support, which totally ignores the fact that in most cases PostgreSQL users do not normally need large objects, thanks to the TEXT type and the BYTEA type. Those types, AFAIK, can be dumped very well by pg_dump.
Anyway, that's enough. I just wanted to show my disappointment in seeing this kind of articles on the web, especially if no way or means of debate are given to users.
I encourage people that want to get to know more about PostgreSQL to surf around the manual or subscribe one of the mailing lists for community support.
That's definitely the best way to get information on a community project such as PostgreSQL.
Another way is to participate to one of the community events organised by the volunteers.
In any case, my advice is to stay out from these inaccurate and outdated reviews.
It is worth saying that current PostgreSQL's version is 8.4. Latest PostgreSQL 6.x is version 6.5.3, which was released in October 1999. Ten years ago. PostgreSQL 7.x is currently unsupported. PostgreSQL 7.0 started in 2000. PostgreSQL 7.1 in 2001, versions 7.2 and 7.3 in 2002 and 7.4 in 2003. PostgreSQL 8.0 came out in 2005, almost 5 years ago!
Once you have taken into account these notes, it is exciting to read the conclusion: "However, the advent of version PostgreSQL 8.x shows that it's going though a process of continuous improvement."
My question is: Why in 2009 would you write a technical review of a product by totally ignoring the last 5 years of evolution of a product? By using a similar approach, I could write a comparison review of PostgreSQL by considering MySQL 3.23 (which I loved, by the way!).
Anyway, about the "SQL standard" compliance, I personally do not understand why it is important to point out that MySQL runs on almost any platform.
In the "Platforms" section, what does exactly mean that "MySQL runs better on Windows than PostgreSQL"? Also, have you considered PostgreSQL 8.x or PostgreSQL 6 or 7 with Cygwin?
I skip the rest sections, even though they are quite "attractive".
However, IMHO, the best part though is the large objects support, which totally ignores the fact that in most cases PostgreSQL users do not normally need large objects, thanks to the TEXT type and the BYTEA type. Those types, AFAIK, can be dumped very well by pg_dump.
Anyway, that's enough. I just wanted to show my disappointment in seeing this kind of articles on the web, especially if no way or means of debate are given to users.
I encourage people that want to get to know more about PostgreSQL to surf around the manual or subscribe one of the mailing lists for community support.
That's definitely the best way to get information on a community project such as PostgreSQL.
Another way is to participate to one of the community events organised by the volunteers.
In any case, my advice is to stay out from these inaccurate and outdated reviews.
Lascia un commento