3 ms·

> MySQL was never more featureful Replication? Replication? Replication? UPSERTS? Also, MySQL supports multiple engines, so when talking about MySQL it makes s

> MySQL was never more featureful Replication? Replication? Replication? UPSERTS? Also, MySQL supports multiple engines, so when talking about MySQL it makes sense which engine you have in mind.

pilif 11y ago
The context of my comment and the comment it responded to was the ~7.1 time-frame which was in 2000. My "never more featureful" comment was related to what was released in 2000. Back then, there was just MyISAM (and maybe even still ISAM), no transactions, no replication, no upserts. Back then there was nothing that MySQL could do that Postgres couldn't.
bsg75 11y ago
Multiple engines in the MySQL case are an anti-feature, from the MyISAM v InnoDB perspective. Far too often the wrong or arbitrary choices are made, mixing within the same database, causing unnecessary confusion and work. "That table is on this storage engine which does not support the operation we need." I can see the case where a different storage engine supports a different data format or use case (columnar storage for example), but in an RDBMS case I would argue consistency outweighs convenience.