Re: MySQL's (false?) claims... (was: Re: PL/java?)

> > Has anyone seen this page on Mysql.org comparing PostgreSQL to MySQL:
> >       http://www.mysql.com/doc/M/y/MySQL-PostgreSQL_features.html
>         Yeah, I've had a few developers show it to me... the best part
> of this is though, when I tried to post a comment, I got a MySQL
> database error.  ::grin::  At anyrate, it looks like a load of FUD from
> a bad marketing department...

It is more of the same that we have seen from MySQL over the years. Each
of the items are unsubstantiated or plain wrong:

1) "Generally much faster". Actually, "generally much slower" in
production environments, where there are multiple clients, simultaneous
selects and updates, and complex queries.

2) "Code is much more stable". Unsubstantiated. And there are
architectural reasons to believe that PG is more robust under failures.
But that opinion might be the reason behind the MyS historically slow
release cycle.

3) "Works on more platforms". Wrong. I count ~20 platforms in the MySQL
list, and we have ~30 in the PG list. The list is tabulated differently
(e.g., HPUX shows up multiple times) but no matter how you slice it, you
can't reach that conclusion.

4) "Works better on Windows". Unsubstantiated, and it does not specify
what "better" means.

5) "Has more API" (sic) But the number of supported languages is about
the same. So??

6) "Works on 24/7 systems". Unsubstantiated, and a narrow focus on
vacuum issues is certainly not a complete justification for this
conclusion regarding MySQL.

7) "A working, tested replication feature". Failed on well known large
sites such as SourceForge.

8) "2 testing suites ... more sofisticated (sic) than anything have seen
from PostgreSQL". Unsubstantiated, and the crashme test has historically
contained gross errors in representing SQL standards and test results.

9) "More books". Enough books?

10) "More support for the standard ODBC functions". Maybe, but not
substantiated. The crashme test does not actually run ODBC, but rather
tries to execute ODBC-like functions from within the backend directly.
Not relevant.

11) "Has support for tables without transactions". Hmm. Could rephrase
as "by default, MySQL has only optional support for the most basic of
RDBMS features, and this only in the last few months." "... for
applications that need all speed they can get". Actually only true for
applications with one or a few users, and only under limited conditions.
Nothing like real life, eh?

12) "3 different table handles". So? The first two didn't work??

Got to go for now...

                         - Thomas