3 ms·
This precisely. MySQL has made headway in recent years but is still miles behind PostgreSQL. No commercial database is in the same league when it comes down to
by jpgvm 11y ago
This precisely. MySQL has made headway in recent years but is still miles behind PostgreSQL. No commercial database is in the same league when it comes down to it either.
Oracle has some nice stuff that PG doesn't have yet but PG is still the nicer database overall.
- cptskippy 11y agoWhat metric are you using to compare databases? It sounds like you're saying MySQL, while crap, is better than commercial databases.
- wtetzner 11y agoI read it as saying Postgres is better than commercial databases.
- jpgvm 11y agoOther gentleman is correct. The tier list is pretty simple. MySQL < MSSQL < Oracle < PostgreSQL. Basically PostgreSQL is king of relational databases right now.
- ismail 11y agoWhy?
- ktRolster 11y agoFree + Fast + no weird syntax (like Oracle) + Most features (although I think Oracle replication might still be better)
- jsmeaton 11y agoOracle replication usually requires Golden Gate to the best of my knowledge. Someone was telling me the other day they hacked their own system together with shell scripts (ship and restore log files using scp etc), but that's probably not something you'd want to build your business on. So yes, Oracle replication is probably better if you use Golden Gate. But Golden Gate is pretty expensive (17k per CPU?).
- cptskippy 11y agoI'm still unclear under what criteria Oracle comes out on top of MSSQL. Aside from the extreme high end, I can't think of a circumstance where I'd prefer using Oracle to MSSQL.
- lololomg 11y agoMSSQL < Oracle? No way. Maybe Postgre is nicer than MSSQL for you. I don't know. But Oracle? Oracle is worse than MSSQL in just about every way that matters.