473,889 Members | 1,431 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Is my MySQL Gaining ?

Dear all,

Their was a huge rore about MySQL recently for something in java functions
now theirs one more

http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html

Does this concern anyone.

What I think is PostgreSQL would have less USP's (Uniqe Selling Points
though we dont sell) now.

What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection.

Regards,
Vishal Kashyap.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

Nov 12 '05
175 11565
Dear Jan Wieck ,
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html

Does this concern anyone.
It seems to concern MySQL now at least. They have changed their minds
on many enterprise features that PostgreSQL has for years. The
strategy of misguiding people like "you don't need foreign keys", "you
don't need stored procedures", "yadda yadda triggers", "blah blah
views" didn't work forever. So they have to add or propose those
features one by one.


Thats very well said
I never thought of this. Now I have a tool to bash my peers who are
tilted toward MySQL .
Let's see them when they're done, okay?


Joining you :-)

Regards ,
Vishal Kashyap
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Nov 12 '05 #11
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote:
One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, one
doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as
interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc.
Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid webmaster that
has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to control
everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ...

Dave

On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote:
I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to
find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would
expect it in the docs.


Like ... ?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: sc*****@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match


----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: sc*****@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postg resql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Nov 12 '05 #12
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html

Does this concern anyone.

Well from one perspective MySQL is still playing catch up. While they
are adding
features that they still don't have stable OR that are labelled "Basic
Support", PostgreSQL
has had mature support for a long time.

What I think is PostgreSQL would have less USP's (Uniqe Selling Points
though we dont sell) now.

Yes and know. USP is great, but we can argue (and will be able to for a
LONG LONG TIME) that,
"Sure mySQL can do that... sort of."


What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection.
It is never good to be placid in the industry but I think you will
continue to see PostgreSQL growth.
I get phone calls weekly from people who have come to realize that MySQL
is just a toy.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

Regards,
Vishal Kashyap.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandpromp t.com - http://www.commandprompt.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

Nov 12 '05 #13
>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Wieck <Ja******@Yahoo .com> writes:

Jan> It seems to concern MySQL now at least. They have changed their minds
Jan> on many enterprise features that PostgreSQL has for years. The
Jan> strategy of misguiding people like "you don't need foreign keys", "you
Jan> don't need stored procedures", "yadda yadda triggers", "blah blah
Jan> views" didn't work forever. So they have to add or propose those
Jan> features one by one.

I've noticed a similar strategy in the PHP vs Perl dimension. PHP
started out being "simple and fast and easy to learn" by throwing off
all of the "complexiti es of Perl that weren't needed".

Slowly and steadily, lagging about 3 to 10 years behind, PHP has
adding one-by-one all those "weird Perl features", but doing a poor
job of integrating them.

So, you can get PHP for 2007 already. It's called Perl, and it's
probably already installed on your box.

"PostgreSQL is where MySQL will be in five years" might be a good
catchmeme. Anyone wanna run with it?

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<me****@stonehe nge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge. com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.St onehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Nov 12 '05 #14
El Vie 26 Dic 2003 13:18, Sai Hertz And Control Systems escribió:
Dear Martin Marques,
What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection.


1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around......
lets say 2 years maybe?
2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, and are getting optimized every new release.

2 Years sounds good but does it matter ? , some day or other MySQL is
going to have more cutting edge features which are already is loaded
with features like Windows Port , Speed etc.


Windows native port might be out in the next release (name it 7.5 or 8.0),
with many other things there, and it should be out by fall of next year,
which is much earlier then 2 years. :-)

--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | mm******@unl.ed u.ar
Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telemática
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Nov 12 '05 #15
I've noticed a similar strategy in the PHP vs Perl dimension. PHP
started out being "simple and fast and easy to learn" by throwing off
all of the "complexiti es of Perl that weren't needed".

Slowly and steadily, lagging about 3 to 10 years behind, PHP has
adding one-by-one all those "weird Perl features", but doing a poor
job of integrating them.

In another vein, PHP has added the features as their market
has required them. Yes Perl has more features that PHP but
so what?

PHP works for those who use it. MySQL works for those who
use it.

That I believe is the fundamental problem with PostgreSQL
vs. MySQL. They are different products:

MS Access is a database
MSSQL is a database

Both have SQL capabilities...

Which one would you run for your accounting system?
O.k. I wouldn't run MSSQL for an accounting system either
but I think my point is made...

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake
So, you can get PHP for 2007 already. It's called Perl, and it's
probably already installed on your box.

"PostgreSQL is where MySQL will be in five years" might be a good
catchmeme. Anyone wanna run with it?


--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandpromp t.com - http://www.commandprompt.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postg resql.org

Nov 12 '05 #16
Hi all;

Regarding the questions of MySQL and PostgreSQL, I do expect PostgreSQL to
continue to grow more slowly than MySQL for some time. However MySQL has a
few problems in their approach that PostgreSQL lacks, and in time, there is
no doubt in my mind that, of the open source databases available today, that
PostgreSQL will be the winner.

The problems with MySQL's include:
1: Trying to make the database manager tolerant of user errors by avoiding
raising exceptions. PostgreSQL tries to make the database tolerant of user
errors by raising exceptions where appropriate!

2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the database
manager. This slows their rate of development and we will continue to move
faster than them.

Regarding PHP vs Perl as equivalent to MySQL vs. PostgreSQL, I disagree
completely. PHP has a number of design elements which make it idea for many
types of applications, while Perl's DIFFERENT design concepts make it ideal
for a different set of applications. Many of these are completely opposite
and irreconcilable. Perl and PHP are just to different to compare. I use
both and appreciate both.

MySQL and PostgreSQL are completely different. When I started learning
PostgreSQL, it was a real PITA (version 6.5). I started to learn MySQL
because it was far easier to manage than PostgreSQL was at the time. When I
would develop PostgreSQL apps, I would usually prototype them on MySQL!

But things have changed. PostgreSQL is every bit as easy to use now as MySQL
for most, possibly even all, environments. A Windows port would be nice
(hope it is out soon), but if not, that is what Firebird is for ;-)

Lastly on the need for introspection-- I think we do need introspection.
Not because of any imaginary gains that MySQL has made, but because we will
always do better if we are rethinking and questioning our methodology.
Introspection is always a good thing, and we should not wait for a
competitive need.

Best WIshes,
Chris Travers
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postg resql.org

Nov 12 '05 #17
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote:
2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the
database manager. This slows their rate of development and we will
continue to move faster than them.
This could be argued both ways, actually ... their model makes for less
discussions on how to implement things ... they decide to implement it, do
it and commit the code without having to worry about whether anyone else
agrees with it ...

The flip side to this, of course, is the lack of input from other
developers who may (or may not) agree with how it is being implemented ...
Regarding PHP vs Perl as equivalent to MySQL vs. PostgreSQL, I disagree
completely. PHP has a number of design elements which make it idea for
many types of applications, while Perl's DIFFERENT design concepts make
it ideal for a different set of applications. Many of these are
completely opposite and irreconcilable. Perl and PHP are just to
different to compare. I use both and appreciate both.


I do agree on this one ... I switched over to PHP years back for Web based
apps, since I liked its forms handling (always hated using the CGI modules
for perl) ... but, for straight utilities, perl or shell is still my
favorite ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: sc*****@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Nov 12 '05 #18
Hi all,
Comments inline

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <sc*****@postgr esql.org>
To: "Chris Travers" <ch***@travelam ericas.com>
Cc: <as*******@hotp op.com>; <pg***********@ postgresql.org> ;
<pg***********@ postgresql.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote:
2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the
database manager. This slows their rate of development and we will
continue to move faster than them.


This could be argued both ways, actually ... their model makes for less
discussions on how to implement things ... they decide to implement it, do
it and commit the code without having to worry about whether anyone else
agrees with it ...

The flip side to this, of course, is the lack of input from other
developers who may (or may not) agree with how it is being implemented ...


Actually my concern here is something else. Open source is a very different
software development methodology than proprietary software development is.
Some time ago, in the MySQL manuals, I had actually see them claim that the
larger development community of PostgreSQL was a bad thing.

See-- here is the problem: Open Source development is at its best when the
core team, in addition to doing development, help to foster an environment
whereby the project grows in community-driven ways. I am not sure that a
close corporate control over an open source project will ever lead to
optimal software because the software will end up stuck between worlds.
This is a major problem for some open source projects.

I have always been a firm believer that software can be either proprietary
or open source, but that the two cannot be combined well into one for
general purpose tools and platforms. I feel that this is the mistake that
Caldera made which has lead to their fall from one of the leading distros to
the current situation where it is not even maintained anymore. In trying to
sell Linux as if it were a proprietary platform, they allowed Red Hat in
particular to out-manuver them. This is the same problem that Trolltech and
MySQL AB have today, for which UserLinux has decided to use GNOME instead of
KDE, and I would be surprised if people selling proprietary apps would
choose MySQL over PostgreSQL.

Simply put my point is that software can be proprietary or open source, but
projects which try to do both often end up losing out. I see MySQL as
trying to do both.

As much as I like the idea of open sourse software, at this time, there is
still a substantial market for proprietary applications, and although it may
fade over time (and has already done so considerably), it is a market that
must open source software must co-exist with rather than simply attempting
to assimilate or trying to belong to both communities.. This is also why I
have argued that the GPL is intended for self-contained projects, of which
MySQL is not, when you include the client libs.

In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near or
long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists. Firebird
is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to
learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being as
easy to use as PostgreSQL.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

Nov 12 '05 #19
Martin Marques (Friday 26 December 2003 14:11)
Windows native port might be out in the next release (name it 7.5 or 8.0),
with many other things there, and it should be out by fall of next year,
which is much earlier then 2 years. :-)
Great. But I really don't see how this makes the DBMS any better at all. So
what if there's a native Windows port? Nobody that I've ever met or talked
to uses MySQL on Windows anyways, and you can always use cygwin if you're
really desperate.

PostgreSQL is primarily an open-source database for open-source systems. If
somebody wants to use MySQL just because they can run it on Windows, I say
let them.

What I *do* see is a whole bunch of MySQL users running around yapping about
how great and fantastic and fast MySQL is and how crappy PostgreSQL is. I
really don't understand them, and they're impossible to reason with.

You can ask "Does MySQL support nested select statements? I use these every
day", and they respond with "You can just use MySQL's proprietary SQL
extensions to do the same thing another way; and MySQL is fast, too!".

I think about the same of these people as I do of people who rave about the
superiority of Windows, their chosen religion, or the country they live in -
underinformed bigots.

From all that I've read in terms of power, flexibility, and features,
PostgreSQL is far ahead of MySQL. And I've yet to see even the slightest
speed issue with a properly designed database schema. Maybe MySQL is faster
with un-normalized tables, and that's why they like to say it's faster? I
don't know, but I really don't care if that's the case.

Vertu sæll,

--
Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe)
cs****@softhome .net / http://rivyn.livejournal.com
Jabber: si*****@jabber. org; ICQ: 1494523; AIM/Yahoo: SomeLinuxGuy

Free development contributor of: KDE toolbar icons
Kopete user interface, usability, and testing
X11 Icelandic Dvorak keymaps
Reporting of over 100 Kopete bugs


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #20

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.