3 ms·

All companies old enough to have a lot of legacy infrastructure from before it was common knowledge that Postgres is better. It would be more curious why MySQL

• bpicolo 10y ago
  MySQL is insanely performant for simple primary key lookups, and has a lot of good knowns. It also has fewer tripups for things like vacuuming, (pretty much requiring) pgbouncer, pgbouncer pooling settings... If you're doing things with replication logs, mysql replication logs are a heck of a lot simpler, and there's more tooling for them in the OSS world That said, I do use postgres a lot :)
  • Annatar 10y ago
    > MySQL is insanely performant for simple primary key lookups, and has a lot of good knowns. MySQL is extremely buggy and silently corrupts data. It also does not enforce explicitly requested referential integrity, a core mandate of a relational database management system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emgJtr9tIME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emgJtr9tIME MySQL lacks adequate authentication model (like OS authentication or SmartCard authentication in Oracle).
    • bpicolo 10y ago
      Video neglects to mention MySQL strict mode (which one should be using) and solves all these behaviors. They're explicit about this in docs, including what the default is: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/server-configuration-defaults.html http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/server-configuration-... Auth is a pretty aside argument. Those sorts of auth are not a particularly common use case. All sorts of auth can go in front rather than be built in, and if those don't apply, sure, might affect your DB choice. Not inherently a reason to not use MySQL though.