5 ms·

The primary target audience for hacker-to-hacker Postgres evangelism is MySQL users. Because let's face it, the choice for DBs like Oracle is usually made upsta

by rickmb 14y ago

The primary target audience for hacker-to-hacker Postgres evangelism is MySQL users. Because let's face it, the choice for DBs like Oracle is usually made upstairs, and for very different reasons. So why do Postgres advocates insist on dissing MySQL with false and misleading arguments? The usual target is some default settings, when obviously there are three kinds of MySQL users: the ones that actually have a reason to want less strictness, the ones that know how and when to change the settings, and the ones that just don't give a fuck. You're not going to convince the latter until you are #1, and you're insulting the intelligence of the first two, whilst also making them question whether the arguments in favor of Postgres are actually true, since you're not being particularly honest in your criticism of MySQL. And you're wondering why Postgres doesn't get any more love? Most MySQL users are well aware that Postgres is technically a better DB. They mostly (right or wrong) feel MySQL serves their needs sufficiently, and are not particularly attracted to an open source community with such a douchy attitude. If even Oracle doesn't scare people of sufficiently to jump ship and switch to a better, free and open database, you've got a serious image problem. Stop blaming it on other people's "stupidity".

yread 14y ago
> usual target is some default settings for me it would be missing common table expressions, weak implementation of functions and SPs (recursion) and horrible .NET connector (connections dying, int can get returned as byte[]). And I'm not even mentioning the gazillions of advanced features that pgsql (and Oracle or SQL Server) has that mysql doesn't.
- adrianhoward 14y ago
  My personal all time mysql fave - values that are both null and not-null http://use.perl.org/use.perl.org/_Adrian/journal/32627.html http://use.perl.org/use.perl.org/_Adrian/journal/32627.html
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
justincormack 14y ago
It is a lot easier to convince someone who wants to use Oracle to use Postgres than to use Mysql. There is serious commercial support available, and it is built for reliability.
- jeltz 14y ago
  And there is also a company dedicated to providing a migration path from Oracle to PostgreSQL: EntrepriseDB. I have not used their products but they employ several of the core contributors to the PostgreSQL project which have contributed to many important features.
- AaronBBrown 14y ago
  Are you suggesting that there isn't "serious commercial support" available for MySQL? Oracle, Percona, SkySQL, and a number of other businesses provide high quality support for MySQL installations.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  Not just that. PostgreSQL is a lot more like Oracle than it is like MySQL. Both are development platforms in a box. Both are built for many applications to run off the same database (this is a use case that MySQL really sucks at btw-- MySQL is ideal for one app per database deployments). Both let you write stored procedures in some variation of PL/SQL and Java. Oracle on the other hand has a setting for everything. A good Oracle DBA can spend all his time fiddling with Oracle settings to get the best possible performance. On the other hand, a good Oracle DBA can spend all his time fiddling with settings to get that little bit of extra performance gain. PostgreSQL is simpler. PostgreSQL on the other hand lets you write your stored procedures in any language. On the other hand, you can spend all your time writing and debugging stored procedures written in brainfuck.....( and in case you want to do that, download the handler at https://github.com/mikejs/pl-bf https://github.com/mikejs/pl-bf and go get started!) There are a few other differences as well. In general, I think Oracle is better for some things, PostgreSQL for others, but they have more overlap than either does with MySQL.
jfaucett 14y ago
I couldn't agree with you more. The statements made in this article seem pretty derisive towards MySQL, a system I like for its flexability, easy integration, and power. Sure, it might not be the most pure sql implementation, it lets you bend the rules for data integrity (maybe not best practice but I still like it) and there are some quirks but calling MySQL stupid doesn't make me a Postgres fan.
- sangnoir 14y ago
  I see this stuff on here all the time, except it's usually $LANGUAGE vs PHP, and it's usually condoned/encouraged.
epo 14y ago
Typical fanboy bluster. What's dishonest about the criticism, be specific? What you really mean to say is that most MySQL users use it because it is there and take it as it has been configured for them. MySQL is the storage platform for people who do not know about databases and probably only use it because some blogging product requires them to.
- smackay 14y ago
  You just made his point and rather succinctly too. MySQL has a low barrier to entry with some reasonable tools that make it easy to get up and running with a minimum of fuss. For a large swathe of applications it does the job just fine. There's little point in trying to pretend otherwise. Where PostgeSQL really fits in is when the next step is needed, either because the app has outgrown what MySQL can offer or there are some use (edge) cases where PostgreSQL does a better job. Address these areas competently and the world will beat a path to your door.
- taligent 14y ago
  > MySQL is the storage platform for people who do not know about databases. Exactly. I mean seriously what do Facebook, Twitter, Yelp, LinkedIn, Flickr etc know about storing lots of data.
  - gaius 14y ago
    If FB or twitter miss a status update, it's no big deal. If you bank misses your salary going in, it is a HUGE deal. Use the right tool for the job.
    - taligent 14y ago
      And what about Amazon, Craigslist, eBay, Etsy, Google, Groupon, Ticketmaster, Yahoo etc. You think they are equally going to be okay with losing data ? Or do you want to try again.
      - gaius 14y ago
newhouseb 14y ago
I'm not sure where in the article the author insults the _users_ of MySQL as stupid, but rather insults some decisions made by MySQL as ill-advised. Incidentally, I was not aware of issues around default settings with MySQL when I switched our infrastructure to Postgres - the primary reason we switched was transactional and much more efficient DDL changes. I was at a company previously that I felt was seriously hampered from innovating due to strong resistance against schema changes by the DBAs and want to do my best to prevent a similar culture where I work. Before I decided to switch I benchmarked schema changes between Postgres and MySQL and found Postgres to be quite impressive, see the gist of results here: https://gist.github.com/1620133 https://gist.github.com/1620133. If you (or anyone else) can point out why this benchmark is false or misleading, I'm all ears.
- jeltz 14y ago
  Your benchmarks especially demonstrate the fact that PostgreSQL tries to do as little work as possible when adding a column or dropping a column (or in recent versions of PostgreSQL when changing the type of a column). If you do not have a default value for the new column PostgreSQL only has to update the table definition which is almost instant. Another interesting part about your benchmarks are that they throw serious doubts on the popular myth that count(*) is slow in PostgreSQL. And your benchmarks were made before PostgreSQL 9.2 which will add index-only scans.
  - mgkimsal 14y ago
    "... throw serious doubts on the popular myth that count() is slow in PostgreSQL." Whew! Glad that was only a myth! I'll remind myself of that whenever my code takes > 10 seconds to return the count() from a table. "Just a myth - this isn't really happening". I'll try repeating that to myself while waiting for the results - probably should only take 10-15 repeats of the phrase before the row returns, right? Whoah - just did a check on a real table with a whopping 2 million records - postgresql 9 just blazed through that in < 7 seconds to give me select count(*) from student; count --------- 2032609 (1 row) w00t! 7 seconds! I'm not even sure how that myth got started, let alone why people still believe that hogwash.
arethuza 14y ago
I suspect the main reason for organisations running Oracle (and MS SQL Server) is because you want to run 3rd party applications.
- ibejoeb 14y ago
  That's one reason. The reason why they need it for third-party applications is because that's what developers targeted, for two reasons: 1. It was the only game in town when the application was designed. 2. It was head-and-shoulders above everyone else. More, better, faster. Most people think you just throw SQL-99 at it, but then you're wasting your money. Look at their analytical languages, for example.
  - arethuza 14y ago
    Of course, Oracle and Microsoft are also major vendors of applications that run on their database servers. In fact, the application revenue for both is probably much higher than database server revenue.
crististm 14y ago
I, for example, have been hit these days by this: http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=26339 http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=26339 I wonder why this bug is still open today after 5 years.

by rickmb 14y ago

yread 14y ago

> usual target is some default settings for me it would be missing common table expressions, weak implementation of functions and SPs (recursion) and horrible .NET connector (connections dying, int can get returned as byte[]). And I'm not even mentioning the gazillions of advanced features that pgsql (and Oracle or SQL Server) has that mysql doesn't.

adrianhoward 14y ago
My personal all time mysql fave - values that are both null and not-null http://use.perl.org/use.perl.org/_Adrian/journal/32627.html http://use.perl.org/use.perl.org/_Adrian/journal/32627.html
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

justincormack 14y ago

It is a lot easier to convince someone who wants to use Oracle to use Postgres than to use Mysql. There is serious commercial support available, and it is built for reliability.

jeltz 14y ago
And there is also a company dedicated to providing a migration path from Oracle to PostgreSQL: EntrepriseDB. I have not used their products but they employ several of the core contributors to the PostgreSQL project which have contributed to many important features.
AaronBBrown 14y ago
Are you suggesting that there isn't "serious commercial support" available for MySQL? Oracle, Percona, SkySQL, and a number of other businesses provide high quality support for MySQL installations.
einhverfr 14y ago
Not just that. PostgreSQL is a lot more like Oracle than it is like MySQL. Both are development platforms in a box. Both are built for many applications to run off the same database (this is a use case that MySQL really sucks at btw-- MySQL is ideal for one app per database deployments). Both let you write stored procedures in some variation of PL/SQL and Java. Oracle on the other hand has a setting for everything. A good Oracle DBA can spend all his time fiddling with Oracle settings to get the best possible performance. On the other hand, a good Oracle DBA can spend all his time fiddling with settings to get that little bit of extra performance gain. PostgreSQL is simpler. PostgreSQL on the other hand lets you write your stored procedures in any language. On the other hand, you can spend all your time writing and debugging stored procedures written in brainfuck.....( and in case you want to do that, download the handler at https://github.com/mikejs/pl-bf https://github.com/mikejs/pl-bf and go get started!) There are a few other differences as well. In general, I think Oracle is better for some things, PostgreSQL for others, but they have more overlap than either does with MySQL.

jfaucett 14y ago

I couldn't agree with you more. The statements made in this article seem pretty derisive towards MySQL, a system I like for its flexability, easy integration, and power. Sure, it might not be the most pure sql implementation, it lets you bend the rules for data integrity (maybe not best practice but I still like it) and there are some quirks but calling MySQL stupid doesn't make me a Postgres fan.

sangnoir 14y ago
I see this stuff on here all the time, except it's usually $LANGUAGE vs PHP, and it's usually condoned/encouraged.

epo 14y ago

Typical fanboy bluster. What's dishonest about the criticism, be specific? What you really mean to say is that most MySQL users use it because it is there and take it as it has been configured for them. MySQL is the storage platform for people who do not know about databases and probably only use it because some blogging product requires them to.

smackay 14y ago
You just made his point and rather succinctly too. MySQL has a low barrier to entry with some reasonable tools that make it easy to get up and running with a minimum of fuss. For a large swathe of applications it does the job just fine. There's little point in trying to pretend otherwise. Where PostgeSQL really fits in is when the next step is needed, either because the app has outgrown what MySQL can offer or there are some use (edge) cases where PostgreSQL does a better job. Address these areas competently and the world will beat a path to your door.
taligent 14y ago
> MySQL is the storage platform for people who do not know about databases. Exactly. I mean seriously what do Facebook, Twitter, Yelp, LinkedIn, Flickr etc know about storing lots of data.
- gaius 14y ago
  If FB or twitter miss a status update, it's no big deal. If you bank misses your salary going in, it is a HUGE deal. Use the right tool for the job.
  - taligent 14y ago
    And what about Amazon, Craigslist, eBay, Etsy, Google, Groupon, Ticketmaster, Yahoo etc. You think they are equally going to be okay with losing data ? Or do you want to try again.
    - gaius 14y ago

newhouseb 14y ago

I'm not sure where in the article the author insults the _users_ of MySQL as stupid, but rather insults some decisions made by MySQL as ill-advised. Incidentally, I was not aware of issues around default settings with MySQL when I switched our infrastructure to Postgres - the primary reason we switched was transactional and much more efficient DDL changes. I was at a company previously that I felt was seriously hampered from innovating due to strong resistance against schema changes by the DBAs and want to do my best to prevent a similar culture where I work. Before I decided to switch I benchmarked schema changes between Postgres and MySQL and found Postgres to be quite impressive, see the gist of results here: https://gist.github.com/1620133 https://gist.github.com/1620133. If you (or anyone else) can point out why this benchmark is false or misleading, I'm all ears.

jeltz 14y ago
Your benchmarks especially demonstrate the fact that PostgreSQL tries to do as little work as possible when adding a column or dropping a column (or in recent versions of PostgreSQL when changing the type of a column). If you do not have a default value for the new column PostgreSQL only has to update the table definition which is almost instant. Another interesting part about your benchmarks are that they throw serious doubts on the popular myth that count(*) is slow in PostgreSQL. And your benchmarks were made before PostgreSQL 9.2 which will add index-only scans.
- mgkimsal 14y ago
  "... throw serious doubts on the popular myth that count() is slow in PostgreSQL." Whew! Glad that was only a myth! I'll remind myself of that whenever my code takes > 10 seconds to return the count() from a table. "Just a myth - this isn't really happening". I'll try repeating that to myself while waiting for the results - probably should only take 10-15 repeats of the phrase before the row returns, right? Whoah - just did a check on a real table with a whopping 2 million records - postgresql 9 just blazed through that in < 7 seconds to give me select count(*) from student; count --------- 2032609 (1 row) w00t! 7 seconds! I'm not even sure how that myth got started, let alone why people still believe that hogwash.

arethuza 14y ago

I suspect the main reason for organisations running Oracle (and MS SQL Server) is because you want to run 3rd party applications.

ibejoeb 14y ago
That's one reason. The reason why they need it for third-party applications is because that's what developers targeted, for two reasons: 1. It was the only game in town when the application was designed. 2. It was head-and-shoulders above everyone else. More, better, faster. Most people think you just throw SQL-99 at it, but then you're wasting your money. Look at their analytical languages, for example.
- arethuza 14y ago
  Of course, Oracle and Microsoft are also major vendors of applications that run on their database servers. In fact, the application revenue for both is probably much higher than database server revenue.

crististm 14y ago

I, for example, have been hit these days by this: http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=26339 http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=26339 I wonder why this bug is still open today after 5 years.