Hi Peter, ----- Original Message -----
Hi Julian,
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012, Julian wrote:
mysql is not really comparable to postgresql apart from the SQL suffix. However postgresql is comparable to Oracle Database/SQL Server/DB2.
Do you have a good (especially recent) list of feature comparisons?
I am using MySQL (and occasionally Postgresql) - but to keep track of all improvements isn't that easy. (BTW: The forks do not make it easier).
I find that tickbox lists don't make much sense in the real world. Apart from features, the different architectures of the different brands make them particularly suitable for specific environments and projects, and another very relevant aspect is familiarity of developers, and available skills of technical administrators (sysadmins, DBAs). Actually *understanding* those differences (which are not simply "PostgreSQL has more features", "MySQL is for the web", "Oracle is Enterprise", etc) Those regarding PostgreSQL, MySQL and Oracle as competitors really miss the point, particularly of why companies choose a particular brand for a particular task. Yes, deployments sometimes do shift from one to another (in any direction). That merely indicates that the deployment operates at a point of overlap where it doesn't matter much which brand is used - or it turned out that the deployment was less suited to the original brand and better suited to the new one. That's good. Companies used to deploy a lot of Oracle as a default choice, even where it was overkill or just generally unsuitable (many web-centric apps would easily fall in to this category, but not merely those). To remedy this, many companies now deploy MySQL in addition to Oracle. This is, in part, indicated by the fact that I've had an increasing number of experienced Oracle DBAs and Developers at my MySQL training courses. So rather than displacing Oracle completely, MySQL is complementary - they live side by side in companies. Similarly, PostgreSQL has been doing extremely well in the GIS space. Aside from such matters and the other described above, the perceived value of specific features and skills is going down - that is, companies now place less value on things like database administration than they do before, even though a serious deployment requires sane architecture at all levels, and ongoing maintenance to guarantee performance and scalability - a badly tuned database server does the job to an acceptable level, given its performance on modern hardware. So they can often get away with it for long, and neglect what an expert regards as fundamental and essential. We can lament and scream that "those companies are stupid and wrong", but understanding what their thought process is really serves us much better, and helps us focus on how to approach them. That is, if we want to do business, rather than merely be right ;-) Cheers, Arjen. -- Exec.Director @ Open Query (http://openquery.com) MySQL services Sane business strategy explorations at http://Upstarta.biz Personal blog at http://lentz.com.au/blog/