3 ms·
In my experience, PostgreSQL misses just a few things compared to MySQL: - Tables cannot be organized as a clustered index (this can be useful to control rows
by ngrilly 10y ago
In my experience, PostgreSQL misses just a few things compared to MySQL:
- Tables cannot be organized as a clustered index (this can be useful to control rows ordering at the storage layer).
- No builtin query cache (but I'm not sure it's very useful).
- It's easier to find hosted MySQL services like Amazon RDS Aurora and Google Cloud SQL.
- YouTube Vitess for MySQL is really great. I don't know if there is something similar for PostgreSQL.
I won't write about the endless list of PostgreSQL's advantages since it wasn't the question ;-)
- NatW 10y agoFYI Amazon RDS now supports Postgresql: https://aws.amazon.com/rds/postgresql/ https://aws.amazon.com/rds/postgresql/
- ngrilly 10y agoYou're right. My comment was misleading. Amazon RDS supports PostgreSQL. What I meant is that it would be great to have Aurora' scalability and performance with PostgreSQL instead of MySQL.
- bsg75 10y ago> - Tables cannot be organized as a clustered index (this can be useful to control rows ordering at the storage layer). Although not actively maintained by the engine (you have to recluster on a schedule): https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-cluster.html https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-cluster.h...
- ngrilly 10y agoYes, but the table is locked during reclustering.