Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project
От | Gauthier, Dave |
---|---|
Тема | Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 482E80323A35A54498B8B70FF2B879800437F84EC3@azsmsx504.amr.corp.intel.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project
Re: Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project Re: Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project Re: Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project Re: Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project Re: Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project Re: Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project Re: Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project Re: Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project |
Список | pgsql-general |
Hi Everyone:
Tomorrow, I will need to present to a group of managers (who know nothing about DBs) why I chose to use PG over MySQL in a project, MySQL being the more popular DB choice with other engineers, and managers fearing things that are “different” (risk). I have a few hard tecnical reasons (check constraint, deferred constraint checking, array data type), but I’m looking for a “it’s more reliable” reasons. Again, the audience is managers. Is there an impartial, 3rd party evaluation of the 2 DBs out there that identifies PG as being more reliable? It might mention things like fewer incidences of corrupt tables/indexes, fewer deamon crashes, better recovery after system crashes, etc... ?
Thanks !
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: