Vick Khera <vi...@khera.org> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Scott Ribe <scott_r...@killerbytes.com>
> wrote:
>> Also, my understanding is that if you go way back on the PostgreSQL timeline
>> to versions 6 and earliest 7.x, it was a little shaky. (I started with 7.3
>> or 7.4, and it has been rock solid.)
> In those same times, mysql was also, um, other than rock solid.
I don't have enough operational experience with mysql to speak to how
reliable it was back in the day. What it *did* have over postgres back
then was speed. It was a whole lot faster, particularly on the sort of
single-stream-of-simple-queries cases that people who don't know
databases are likely to set up as benchmarks. (mysql still beats us on
cases like that, though not by as much.) I think that drove quite a
few early adoption decisions, and now folks are locked in; the cost of
conversion outweighs the (perceived) benefits.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
