3 ms·
The odd point i would add is that Amazon are betting on it with Aurora. While Aurora is not really MySQL, the fact that they decided upon the MySQL API rather t
by verelo 11y ago
The odd point i would add is that Amazon are betting on it with Aurora. While Aurora is not really MySQL, the fact that they decided upon the MySQL API rather than PostgreSQL really says a lot about the market penetration of MySQL and that its truly got some life left in it yet.
Personally, I love PostgreSQL, it's my preference in terms of a db engine...but i have to agree with a lot of the above comments (excluding pt 4 about cluster - thats a world of trouble in my experience)
http://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/ http://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/
- schleyfox 11y agoFrom my understanding, Aurora is a modified MySQL with a few components substantially rewritten and a new, log-structured storage engine added that is well integrated with Amazon's storage infrastructure (volumes auto-grow, quorum is handled at the storage layer, replicas are just caching views on top of shared, replicated storage). MySQL has support for multiple storage engines over a relatively simple API, while Postgres is tightly integrated with its storage engine. In addition, MySQL just has a lot fewer features and points of extensibility, so it would likely be easier to support.
- verelo 11y agoI see a few down-votes (thats cool...) out of curiosity and to better the discussion would anyone down-voting mind adding to the conversation? Generally curious about peoples thoughts on the MySQL V PostgreSQL situation, in particular how the community is receiving Aurora.