4 ms·
Some people will hate my summaries here, but: (1) The strength of PostgreSQL is that it offers a extremely Oracle-like experience, for free. (2) The strength
by StevePerkins 9y ago
Some people will hate my summaries here, but:
(1) The strength of PostgreSQL is that it offers a extremely Oracle-like experience, for free.
(2) The strength of MySQL (and its forks like MariaDB, Percona, Vitess, etc) are much better operational support for clustering, replication, sharding, etc.
Conversely, PostgreSQL is harder to take to scale, and MySQL is much more weird and quirky in basic functionality.
Industry hype aside, the reality is that the overwhelming number of applications AREN'T very high-scale. They're dealing with gigabytes of data, not terabytes or petabytes. And the professionals who deal with petabytes for a living tend to spend less time chatting on web forums, compared to students and hobbyists and bored line-of-business developers.
So it's not too surprising that there's more discussion and more love for the database that's best suited for the scale at which most people operate.
- mixmastamyk 9y ago2 used to be true, but is less and less with every release. Won’t say it is false yet, but PG 10 is getting there. What is still left to do?
- kuschku 9y agoCockroachDB-style "set and forget" clusters. If I can just put a container image into my kubernetes cluster, and set it to auto-scale, and postgres automatically scales depending on load, and it all just magically works, then it’d be perfect. Knowing how well engineered everything else in PGSQL is, I’m sure this is going to happen sooner or later.
- ddorian43 9y agoMysql also doesn't have range-based-sharding (in any external tool that I know). You have to look at CockroachDB(postgresql driver) vs TiDB(mysql driver) unless you want to wait 10 years for that to happen in pg/mysql land.