MySQL simply did a better job of marketing themselves to an audience that typically doesn't know SQL or understand relational databases. MySQL focuses on speed as it's primary asset. Integration with quick growing languages (like PHP) helped a lot too. MySQL is also the product of an existing software company that employed basic marketing principles early in the game. Most of the web based projects I have found were obviously written by (good) programmers that just didn't have a grasp of relational data models. They just needed a quick & easy way to store large tables of information. (Berkley DBM's only go so far) Given that this "less DB savvy" audience didn't understand relational databases, things like triggers and decent SQL support don't strike them as important as speed. MySQL is a good migration path for xBase, and the multitude of DBM based scripts that were dominate a few years ago. PostgreSQL is the only path for someone that intends to use relational design in their applications. MySQL doesn't even come close. The bottom line is that the marketing of PostgreSQL is not even close to that of MySQL. Thank god the code, community and support doesn't follow suit! my 2 cents --rob ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Hermit Hacker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ronald Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 3:08 PM Subject: Re: Re: Why PostgreSQL is not that popular as MySQL? > On 29 Nov 2000, Ronald Cole wrote: > > > Raymond Chui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I am just start look at PostgreSQL for our Redhat Linux. > > > I am wonder why most of people choose MySQL in Linux > > > world rather than PostgreSQL? PostgreSQL has 15 years > > > history (I never know that before) which is much longer > > > than MySQL. Also PostgreSQL supports a lot of things > > > which MySQL has not support yet. > > > > Postgres, yes. PostgreSQL, no. PostgreSQL was a new project with > > Postgres95 as a starting point. Postgres95 was an attempt to put an > > SQL front-end on Postgres. AFAIK, most all of the Postgres code was > > jettisoned early on for performance reasons. That makes PostgreSQL > > roughly five years old, code-wise. > > > > I still have a Postgres95 tree in CVS before the PostgreSQL fork to > > prove it, too! ;) > > so do we :) way way back when: > > RCS file: /home/projects/pgsql/cvsroot/pgsql/HISTORY,v > Working file: HISTORY > head: 1.79 > branch: > locks: strict > access list: > symbolic names: > REL7_0_PATCHES: 1.70.0.2 > REL7_0: 1.70 > REL6_5_PATCHES: 1.52.0.2 > REL6_5: 1.52 > REL6_4: 1.44.0.2 > release-6-3: 1.33 > SUPPORT: 1.1.1.1 > PG95-DIST: 1.1.1 > > --------------- > Postgres95 1.02 Thu Aug 1 18:00:00 EDT 1996 > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Source code maintainenance and development > * worldwide team of volunteers > * the source tree now in CVS at ftp.ki.net > * developers mailing list - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------- > > yeesh ... now *that* is old ... 4.5 years and growing ... > > >
