Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Wiggins" == Wiggins D'Anconia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wiggins> Agreed. I have requested this from him before, but didn't get much.
I haven't responded because I've been using the net at 40 cents per minute from a satellite link on a ship this past week, and right now I'm using a 10 cents per minute cellphone modem. When I get back to a free link, I'll post more.
But in short, MySQL was great when it was the only game in town. But PostgreSQL has leapfrogged MySQL now in every area including features, performance, *and* license. There's no point in starting a new project with MySQL, *except* for legacy.
Mr. Schwartz,
As I stated before, I have a non-trivial amount of admiration for your work, but in sounding the death knell for MySQL, I feel you ignore real world factors that may make it's use advantageous. First of all is the large installed base—the legacy you mentioned. Portability is not a small issue.
Secondly, every review or comparison I have read touts MySQL as an easier database to learn. Yes, ease of use may come at the expense of a larger featureset, but not everyone needs every feature. IMO simplicity is a virtue.
Thirdly, you seem to look at MySQL as a dead language, like Latin. Who is to say that the next versiom won't leapfrog PostgreSQL in some areas?
Finally, Sir you are dealing with a group that thinks empiracly. Are we to take your word that PostgreSQL is faster? Give us some benchmarks. Back up your claims with unbiased third party testing.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
