11 ms·
Respectfully, I really don't think the Windows factor had much to do with it. It came down to one thing: the perception that MySQL was fast and Postgres was sl
by teilo 16y ago
Respectfully, I really don't think the Windows factor had much to do with it.
It came down to one thing: the perception that MySQL was fast and Postgres was slow.
Further, MySQL was easier to setup due to its simplistic security model, and thus there was less to learn.
- davidw 16y ago> It came down to one thing: the perception that MySQL was fast and Postgres was slow. I've always said that Mysql (with MyISAM rather than InnoDB, to be fair) was like a bicycle without brakes. Yes, it's faster going down hills, however...
- lsc 16y agobut that was, I think, what those who criticized MySQL missed. 95% of the use I saw MySQL being put to in the late 90s and early 00s would today be done in some distributed key/value store. Most people using MySQL didn't care that it wasn't a very good RDBMS because they didn't need a very good RDBMS. they needed a fast key/value store that could handle basic locking most of the time, and that worked out of box without a lot of setup.
- 8ren 16y agoMarkets weight features. Sometimes performance is most important, sometimes scalability, adoptability, usability, reliability, cost etc. It can even change over time. This is self-evident, but it's so easy to forget when one is familiar with the overall comparative technical merits - this one is so much better in most ways. How could the other one win?!