On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 00:14, Paul M Foster wrote:
> Hmm. I'm not sure "much better" is appropriate. If Bryan's right, MySQL
> is easier on resources, making it marginally more suited to web work.
MySQL was the first to say, "do we really need transactions?" The
answer was "no" for many web applications. As such, the traditional
ACID database is typically overkill for many web applications. As long
as web applications were implemented to accommodate this, then MySQL was
the bomb.
Today MySQL offers transactions. SAP has donated code and contracted
MySQL AB to be its new DB maintainer (as of mid-2003). MySQL has
extended its capabilities.
> Though MySQL used to be the speed demon years ago, PostgreSQL has
> recently matched it in general. And until recently, MySQL did not have
> transaction support and a few other critical SQL features which
> PostgreSQL did.
Because it approached the problem differently. Berkeley Ingres and
Postgres are the grand-daddy of all modern ACID databases.
> There are also licensing issues with MySQL. I believe the gist of it is
> that if you're running closed source software against MySQL, you have to
> have a commercial license to use the product. Actually, it's probably
> more like if you're _selling_ closed source software against MySQL....
Correct. Because MySQL is GPL, not LGPL. PostgreSQL is BSD.
I have no beef with MySQL AB on their choice of license.
If you link GPL to MySQL AB, you don't pay them a dime. If you want
link a non-GPL compatible license, you license from them differently.
In a nutshell, you fund MySQL AB. MySQL AB, in turn, develops more GPL
software. Recurse for each, new derivative.
My $0.02 conclusion: Stallman was and is a genius
> PostgreSQL is completely Open Source, with no company backing. It has
> striven to be standards based, and given MySQL as its nearest
> competition, has closed the speed gap while continuing to add features.
The commercial startup that offered SLAs for PostgreSQL didn't last 18
months.
Shortly after their demise, Red Hat offered SLAs on PostgreSQL in the
"Red Hat Database." I don't know if they still do (never looked into it
myself)?
> In the end, I'm not sure it much matters which you use. I don't like the
> licensing issues, and I prefer the more complete SQL feature set, so I
> go for PostgreSQL. But I don't know that it matters much.
I tend to like GPL as it doesn't allow for I call "leeching" like BSD
does. But that's my $0.02, and I'm sure the term "leeching" is relevant
to someone's viewpoint.
As far as "complete SQL feature set" -- I'm not sure I know what you
mean by that. In reality, every DB has a differing set of SQL. I.e.,
every DB has extensions. As far as SQL '92 and '99 compliance, that
varies.
MySQL now offers an ACID configuration. PostgreSQL has always been.
What you use is up to you. If anything, it's typically a factor of what
already exists and can be re-used.
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ Beware of advocates who justify their preference not in terms of what they like about their "choice," but what they did not like about another option. Such advocacy is more hurtful than helpful.----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:25:48 EDT