Re: MySQL v. PostgreSQL, continued, was: Microsoft Access - two questions
On 7/31/07, Ted Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Josh Berkus blogs, > > "... should be picking a database based on which specific ... features, they > need in their database and not out of some ignorant assessment that > "Database X is way faster." Are you saying that decisions should be made based on facts and measured results, and not just on random hearsay, anecdote, and popular rumor? Well, there goes two-thirds of the Internet. And most CMP and IDG publications. ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: MySQL v. PostgreSQL, continued, was: Microsoft Access - two questions
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 10:39 -0400, Ted Roche wrote: > >Paul Lussier wrote: > > > It is lacking features[1][2], and I've certainly seen plenty (if not most) > > uses of MySQL completely abuse it to the point where the "developer" > > completely missed the "R" point RDB[3]. > > Most programmers are amateurs. Even the really, really good ones. > Business application programmers follow the same normal curve as most > everything else: few really, really good ones, few really, really bad > ones, but the bad ones leave such memorable disasters behind them! > > More fuel for the fire... Josh Berkus blogs, > > "What is does show is that PostgreSQL and MySQL are very, very close in > performance today and the outdated belief that MySQL is somehow multiple > times faster than PostgreSQL is dramatically misplaced. Users should be > picking a database based on which specific performance features, and > other features, they need in their database and not out of some ignorant > assessment that "Database X is way faster." That's pretty much been true > for years, but the very close benchmark results shows that pretty clearly." > > Source: > http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/soup/archives/benchmark-brouhaha-17939 > > Competition is Good. In my experience, key reasons to choose MySQL are: replication - it is easy to feed changes to remote servers without the uptime requirements of two-phase commits easy administration As a DBMS, it requires more planning in developing an application simply because of its differences from the competition and the lack of commit/rollback in its myisam tables. -- Lloyd Kvam Venix Corp ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: MySQL v. PostgreSQL, continued, was: Microsoft Access - two questions
I've heard it said that MySQL is the ideal database for programmers who don't understand databases. No annoyances like stored procedures and server constraints to get in the way of your application code scribbling all over the tables. ;-) Of course, I gather MySQL has improved a fair bit in terms of features, especially with the addition of the InnoDB engine, so it's not a fair assessment of MySQL any longer. But I suspect it is still a fair assessment of most of the "Learn PHP in 27 seconds" crowd :) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: MySQL v. PostgreSQL, continued, was: Microsoft Access - two questions
> No annoyances like stored procedures Oh well, they just added "stored procedures" in 5.0 md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: MySQL v. PostgreSQL, continued, was: Microsoft Access - two questions
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:39:32 -0400 Ted Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Paul Lussier wrote: > > > It is lacking features[1][2], and I've certainly seen plenty (if not most) > > uses of MySQL completely abuse it to the point where the "developer" > > completely missed the "R" point RDB[3]. > > Most programmers are amateurs. Even the really, really good ones. > Business application programmers follow the same normal curve as most > everything else: few really, really good ones, few really, really bad > ones, but the bad ones leave such memorable disasters behind them! > > More fuel for the fire... Josh Berkus blogs, > > "What is does show is that PostgreSQL and MySQL are very, very close in > performance today and the outdated belief that MySQL is somehow multiple > times faster than PostgreSQL is dramatically misplaced. Users should be > picking a database based on which specific performance features, and > other features, they need in their database and not out of some ignorant > assessment that "Database X is way faster." That's pretty much been true > for years, but the very close benchmark results shows that pretty clearly." > > Source: > http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/database/soup/archives/benchmark-brouhaha-17939 > > Competition is Good. One symptom which indicates that programmers are amateurs is that they prematurely optimize. In this case, a concentration on performance, as though it were the only question. In the professional environment, performance is only one of several, or many, considerations. In aviation, for instance, there has been over the years a succession of "new technology" in engines, repeated again and again. "More HP!" "Faster cruise speed!" Also repeated again and again: sober experience from deployment. Heat load. Reliability. Holes in pistons. (A little thing like that at 8,000 feet can ruin your whole day.) So real engineers laugh at the "10 more horsepower" crowd. It's the same in power-plant design, the same in refineries, the same in architecture, the same in bridge building. (Bridges give us some EXCELLENT examples of what happens when an engineer goes a little bit amateur. You've probably seen a video of the Tacoma Narrows bridge coming apart.) IN THIS CASE (databases) it's not professional to concentrate on performance as though all the other considerations have been proven to be equal. They have not. For one example, the difference in licensing, and in proprietariness or potential proprietariness(*) has not been established.) Only an amateur would feel satisfied at "10% faster" when the customers' real exposure may appear two years from now when one product or another is withdrawn from the market.(**) I'm not saying any of those other things will happen. It's only that real engineers recognize things which *might* happen and factor them into the work they do for their clients. (Like winds and resonances for a bridge design.) The amateur has the luxury of concentrating on the "fun" things. Like performance. also_from_the_heart'ly yrs, Bill (*) potential proprietariness - read: whether a large corporation might buy out the principal sponsor of the project, or enter into a "patent agreement" with the principal sponsor of the project. Whether the principal sponsor is a commercial entity or not can become an issue. (Think of Novell.) (**) withdrawn from the market - read: whether a large corporation might buy out the principal sponsor of the project with the express purpose to leave customers with a "migration path" to the obvious remaining "choice". (Think of Blackboard and WebCT.) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: MySQL v. PostgreSQL, continued, was: Microsoft Access - two questions
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:53:23AM -0400, Jon 'maddog' Hall wrote: > > No annoyances like stored procedures > > Oh well, they just added "stored procedures" in 5.0 And a bunch of other useful features such as triggers, views and more storage engines for specialized database needs (some via 3rd parties). -marc -- Marc Nozell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.nozell.com/blog ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: MySQL v. PostgreSQL, continued, was: Microsoft Access - two questions
On 7/31/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh well, they just added "stored procedures" in 5.0 On 7/31/07, Marc Nozell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And a bunch of other useful features such as triggers, views and more > storage engines for specialized database needs (some via 3rd parties). I'm gonna have to start putting a "Please read and consider my entire message before replying" notice at the top of all my posts... ;-) On 7/31/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course, I gather MySQL has improved a fair bit in terms of > features, especially with the addition of the InnoDB engine, so it's > not a fair assessment of MySQL any longer. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: MySQL v. PostgreSQL, continued, was: Microsoft Access - two questions
"Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm gonna have to start putting a "Please read and consider my > entire message before replying" notice at the top of all my posts... But that would eliminate much of the hilarity ensuing from those who take snippets of your posts completely out of context :) Not to mention the fact that the words "Please read" at the top of any e-mail pretty much guarantees most people won't :) -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: MySQL v. PostgreSQL, continued, was: Microsoft Access - two questions
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 13:54 -0400, Paul Lussier wrote: > "Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'm gonna have to start putting a "Please read and consider my > > entire message before replying" notice at the top of all my posts... > > But that would eliminate much of the hilarity ensuing from those > who take snippets of your posts completely out of context :) > > Not to mention the fact that the words "Please read" at the top of any > e-mail pretty much guarantees most people won't :) I, for one, read and considered Ben's entire post before replying. However, since Ben had singled out stored procedures as one of the "annoyances" that MySQL did not have and in his next paragraph stated that MySQL had "improved with features", yet had not mentioned stored procedures, I surmised that he might be uninformed that not only has MySQL implemented "stored procedures", but that O'Reilly has published an entire book on the subject: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/mysqlspp/ which I happened to see at OSCON last week. md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: MySQL v. PostgreSQL, continued, was: Microsoft Access - two questions
On Jul 31, 2007, at 13:17, Ben Scott wrote: > I'm gonna have to start putting a "Please read I think everybody reads at least part of your messages before replying - what do you mean, exactly? -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: MySQL v. PostgreSQL, continued, was: Microsoft Access - two questions
On 7/31/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 13:54 -0400, Paul Lussier wrote: > > "Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'm gonna have to start putting a "Please read and consider my > > > entire message before replying" notice at the top of all my posts... > > But that would eliminate much of the hilarity ensuing from those > > who take snippets of your posts completely out of context :) > I, for one, read and considered Ben's entire post before replying. > However, since Ben had singled out stored procedures as one of the > "annoyances" that MySQL did not have and in his next paragraph stated > that MySQL had "improved with features", yet had not mentioned stored > procedures, I surmised that he might be uninformed that not only has > MySQL implemented "stored procedures", but that O'Reilly has published > an entire book on the subject: Let's not forget that MySQL has reasonably recently gotten features such as stored procedures. Yes, they are now there, and are functional. But they aren't as mature as most other database systems. For example, in many cases a stored procedure on MySQL can actually take longer then issuing simular commands directly via SQL, as the the optimizations of stored procedures isn't as mature as that of the equivilant SQL. Triggers are rudimentary. The concept of inheritence is also relativly new. Sequences are non existant. Custom data types are impossible. O'Reilly tends to publish books on many things that are being adopted, but many of these features are currently being developed and 'aged'. Peoples conceptions of MySQL as not being as seriouse as say, PostgreSQL, is partially valid, simply because many of it's features are not as mature. It's not to say performance, i.e., 'This ones faster', because that's going to change depending on what your doing. MySQL is faster in some things, slower then others. It's stored procedures aren't as mature, and are currently slower. It's selects can be much faster. If I have an application requirement for a database which is utilized to lookup existing data, MySQL is certainly high on the choice list. If I have a data architecture where multiple methods of accessing and/or updating data will be utilized, i.e., data bridges vs web collected data vs end user applications, PostgreSQL is much higher on the list. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
