4 ms·

> * didn't read the manual > * poor schema > * didn't maintain the database (compactions, etc.) The real world dictates that this happens more often than not.

• randomdata 13y ago
  To be fair, Postgres has automatic vacuuming now, but it is a relatively new feature. Both projects seem to agree that it is not a high-priority item, though there is certainly something to be said about using a mature product, which Mongo is most certainly not. Your comment has made me quite curious to know what people using mature databases of the time were saying about Postgres 19 years ago, when it was roughly the same age Mongo is today.
  • makomk 13y ago
    Back when Postgres didn't have automatic vacuuming, the need for manual vacuuming was one of the commonly-suggested reasons why MySQL was a better option - after all, MySQL just worked out of the box.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • jeltz 13y ago
    Yeah, autovacuum was added in 7.4 (2003) and not really to be trusted to do its job without monitoring until 8.3 (2008). But the priorities of the PostgreSQL project have changed in the last about 5 years. Today usability is important.
  • sergiosgc 13y ago
    There's a huge difference. Postgresql was formally correct first, then it became fast, then it became easy to use. I always had the feeling I could trust it with my data. Postgresql, if wrong, would be wrong towards correctedness and towards data safety, at the expense of speed. I definitely don't get the same vibe from MongoDB.