Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.databases.postgresql > #309 > unrolled thread

MySQL

Back to article view | Back to comp.databases.postgresql

Contents

  MySQL Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2012-02-16 22:05 +0000
    Re: MySQL Harry Tuttle <OTPXDAJCSJVU@spammotel.com> - 2012-02-17 15:49 +0100
      Re: MySQL Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2012-02-18 03:06 +0000
        Re: MySQL Hans Castorp <hans.castorp@xyz.de> - 2012-02-18 07:56 +0100
          Re: MySQL Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2012-02-18 18:40 +0000
    Re: MySQL Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2012-02-18 12:17 -0700
      Re: MySQL Hans Castorp <hans.castorp@xyz.de> - 2012-02-18 22:07 +0100
        Re: MySQL Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2012-02-18 15:13 -0700
        Re: MySQL Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2012-02-18 22:29 +0000

#309 — MySQL

It looks that the other open source database is making great leaps in 
performance:

http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/white-papers/mysql-cluster-7.2-ga.html

In addition to better partitioning and parallelism, MySQL also has hints. 
That may motivate PostgreSQL developers to make some of the features 
available in free PostgreSQL implementation. So far, the features like 
the ones listed above were only available in commercial versions of 
Postgres, like VoltDB, Vertica or EnterpriseDB. With this new version, 
MySQL will run circles around Postgres, which may make Postgres much less 
interesting for the people trying to get off Oracle. 



-- 
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#310

Mladen Gogala, 16.02.2012 23:05:
> MySQL will run circles around Postgres, which may make Postgres much less
> interesting for the people trying to get off Oracle.

Then use MySQL by all means

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#311

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:49:27 +0100, Harry Tuttle wrote:

> Mladen Gogala, 16.02.2012 23:05:
>> MySQL will run circles around Postgres, which may make Postgres much
>> less interesting for the people trying to get off Oracle.
> 
> Then use MySQL by all means

And that is your response to a potential PostgreSQL user? No wonder that 
PostgreSQL never caught on, like MySQL. 


-- 
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#312

Mladen Gogala wrote on 18.02.2012 04:06:
>> Mladen Gogala, 16.02.2012 23:05:
>>> MySQL will run circles around Postgres, which may make Postgres much
>>> less interesting for the people trying to get off Oracle.
>>
>> Then use MySQL by all means
>
> And that is your response to a potential PostgreSQL user? No wonder that
> PostgreSQL never caught on, like MySQL.
>

You are *not* a potential Postgres user.

The only time you post here is to rant about Postgres because you cannot accept that it works differently than Oracle.

It's the same attitude you critisize when people migrate e.g. from SQL Server to Oracle and expect that they can do everything the "SQL Server way" in Oracle.


  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#313

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:56:16 +0100, Hans Castorp wrote:


> You are *not* a potential Postgres user.

Actually, at one time I was. I was even very enthusiastic about Postgres, 
I even persuaded my employer at the time to host Postgres meetings. We 
even had Bruce Momjian and Robert Haas at some of those meetings. Now, 
you could call me a disappointed and disillusioned Postgres user. I still 
haven't given up all hope, but in order for me to start using it again, I 
would require some commitment to implementing hints. I don't really care 
if some former pastry bakers will have to eat their words back because of 
it. In my humble opinion former pastry bakers shouldn't be steering a 
relational database anyway.
Unfortunately, it looks like that is not going to happen, PostgreSQL will 
remain a loser product. Stonebraker lost against Oracle once, it looks 
like that will happen again. Shame, there was a good potential here, if 
only wasn't for a bunch of incompetent yahoos, writing things like this:
http://tinyurl.com/68gu822
A database with this guy in the steering committee cannot make any 
inroads, that's for sure. Not only did MySQL trump Postgres over and over 
again, the same feat will likely be repeated by MongoDB. It seems that 
Michael Stonebraker hasn't learned anything from the past experiences.



-- 
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#314

Hi Mladen,

On 2/16/2012 3:05 PM, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> It looks that the other open source database is making great leaps in
> performance:
>
> http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/white-papers/mysql-cluster-7.2-ga.html
>
> In addition to better partitioning and parallelism, MySQL also has hints.
> That may motivate PostgreSQL developers to make some of the features
> available in free PostgreSQL implementation. So far, the features like
> the ones listed above were only available in commercial versions of
> Postgres, like VoltDB, Vertica or EnterpriseDB. With this new version,
> MySQL will run circles around Postgres, which may make Postgres much less
> interesting for the people trying to get off Oracle.

As with any market, you pick the product that best fits your
*particular* selection criteria.  Some mix of features, performance,
cost, reliability, etc.  The closer to "mainstream" that your choices
are, the more selection you will *tend* to have available.

That doesn't mean suppliers won't exist for niche markets or
for markets that they perceive to be headed in a different
direction, etc.

(e.g., TI made processors ~25 years ago that had no internal
"registers" [1].  They assumed memory would get faster AND
the constraint on some small, fixed number of internal
registers would be a wise one to lift.  Unfortunately, for TI,
technology and The Industry went in a different direction!)

We had hoped PG would be a good fit for some products, here.
(some felt MySQL would be The Right Choice).  We knew it was
missing many features that we sought.  But, hoped those features
would come along, with time.  We keep Oracle docs on hand to
make sure we don't stray too far afield with particular PG/MySQL
features:  "is there another, less PG/MySQL-specific, way of
doing this?"

I am slowly (and reluctantly) coming to the conclusion that
we will probably end up as Oracle customers -- simply because
some of the "must have" features will be too hard to back-port
(reliably!) into other implementations if they differ too much
from the "design philosophy" of those original implementations
(e.g., read only media support is one such issue.  others are
even more difficult to get into the pie after its been baked!)

A "proprietary" approach may prove to be the most appropriate
solution (<huge_frown>).

--------------------
[1]  This is a minor inaccuracy; the workspace pointer, etc.
resided in the CPU.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#315

> As with any market, you pick the product that best fits your
> *particular* selection criteria. Some mix of features, performance,
> cost, reliability, etc. The closer to "mainstream" that your choices
> are, the more selection you will *tend* to have available.

Having the choice is a good thing, but I wouldn't want to use a DBMS that is so crippled when it comes to SQL features as MySQL (CTE, recursive queries, windowing functions, partial indexes, function based indexes, check constraints, ...)

Putting priority on certain features is one thing - everyone has different requirements.

Constantly ranting about the fact that something is missing in a product is another thing.

And that's exactly what Mladen is doing - and he only does it in the PG groups.
I have never seen him complain about all the things that MySQL doesn't have.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#316

Hi Hans,

On 2/18/2012 2:07 PM, Hans Castorp wrote:
>> As with any market, you pick the product that best fits your
>> *particular* selection criteria. Some mix of features, performance,
>> cost, reliability, etc. The closer to "mainstream" that your choices
>> are, the more selection you will *tend* to have available.
>
> Having the choice is a good thing, but I wouldn't want to use a DBMS
> that is so crippled when it comes to SQL features as MySQL (CTE,
> recursive queries, windowing functions, partial indexes, function based
> indexes, check constraints, ...)

Understood.  My first DBMS application development experience was ~6-7
years ago.  I *had* to use an open source product and that quickly
boiled down to PG vs MySQL.  At that time, the choice was painfully
obvious (to *me* -- a colleague went the MySQL route.  <shrug>)

> Putting priority on certain features is one thing - everyone has
> different requirements.

Of course, you *somehow* manage to make <whatever> work for you
since starting over is usually painfully prohibited.  So, both
my colleague and I are reasonably comfortable with our decisions
*despite* the fact that they were so different.

It would be educational to step back and start over and *see*
what the relative costs of each decision were.  But, that's only
practical for academics (some of us have to WORK for a living!  :> )

> Constantly ranting about the fact that something is missing in a product
> is another thing.
>
> And that's exactly what Mladen is doing - and he only does it in the PG
> groups. I have never seen him complain about all the things that MySQL
> doesn't have.

Understood.  I don't follow any MySQL groups so can't comment.

The point of *my* comment was:  pick what works for you.  If
that's Oracle, then *USE* Oracle!  Complaining to some other
vendor (that you are NOT using) because their product doesn't
meet your needs is disingenuous.  Especially when the obvious
criteria separating that vendor from your current vendor is
HOW MUCH YOU HAVE TO SHELL OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET!

"Free ice cream today!"

"Great!  I'd like a large chocolate cone!"

"Sorry, all we have for free is Vanilla.  The chocolate costs $1."

"What??  The vendor down the street sells chocolate for $X!  Why
aren't you giving it away???"

"<shrug>  Sorry.  Would you like a free VANILLA cone?
(or would you rather stand around ranting *hoping* I'll
give you a chocolate one just to shut you up?  But, then,
are you likely to complain that it doesn't come with
whipped cream and a *cherry*???)"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#317

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 22:07:09 +0100, Hans Castorp wrote:

> Having the choice is a good thing, but I wouldn't want to use a DBMS
> that is so crippled when it comes to SQL features as MySQL (CTE,
> recursive queries, windowing functions, partial indexes, function based
> indexes, check constraints, ...)

Well, many more people are still using MySQL than PostgreSQL. I wonder 
why?

> 
> Putting priority on certain features is one thing - everyone has
> different requirements.

Hints have been requested many times, by many people.


> 
> Constantly ranting about the fact that something is missing in a product
> is another thing.

It's far from constantly. As a matter of fact, I haven't been active on 
this group for months, which can be easily checked.

> 
> And that's exactly what Mladen is doing - and he only does it in the PG
> groups.

Postgres groups seem to be the right place to complain about Postgres. 
Where do you suggest I should complain about Posgtgres? 


> I have never seen him complain about all the things that MySQL doesn't
> have.

MySQL did not adopt bait and switch approach. By that, I mean the 
following: I was lead to believe that Postgres is "the most advanced open 
source database in the world" and then "forcefully directed" to buy the 
proprietary version. When I needed a feature that is really necessary in 
project development and supported by all other open source databases. I 
refused to play the game and decided to warn any other possible suckers 
and prevent them from wasting a fair amount of time to study a product 
which doesn't really deserve attention.

I also noticed that these attacks are increasingly personal, dealing with 
me personally. I was given the status of "an enemy", almost a religious 
approach. Religious approach in the arena of relational databases is 
quite strange, which is one more reason for being very careful when 
adopting Postgres.

I am an Oracle DBA with a very long history and a reputation to match. It 
is in my power to vote for or against open source products to evaluate. 
My CIO usually respects my opinion. I am exactly the kind of person that 
software vendors are trying very hard to appease when offering software. 
Trying to exorcise me from the Postgres community only shows how bad 
things are and what kind of single-minded religious zealots rule the 
church of Postgres these days.

There is something badly broken in Postgres community because MySQL is 
much more heavily used than Postgres, despite all of its deficiencies. 
The sheer number of users is sufficient to prove that statement beyond 
reasonable doubt.

I know that this will not make me very popular with the Postgres 
faithful, but this database will wither and die, unless something is 
done. I am afraid, however, that nothing can be done. Postgres is still 
heavily influenced by Michael Stonebraker, who has already been beaten by 
Oracle an is on its way to lose the rematch as well. May Stonebraker be 
with you, my friend.

Instead of adding ridiculous features like range types or pg_dump which 
can use both the primary and the standby at the same time, Postgres 
developers would do well to add hints and parallelism. That would make 
the database more popular and them look less ridiculous or religulous, to 
use the nice new word coined by Bill Maher.



-- 
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.databases.postgresql

csiph-web