It's my opinion that we should be using PG, because of the full ACID support, and the license involved. A consultant my company hired before bringing me in is pushing hard for MySql, citing speed and community support, as well as ACID support.
Does the consultant push "speed AND ACID" or "speed OR ACID"? My point is that PostgreSQL is said to be harder to install/maintain/tune than MySQL. I have been reading some MySQL mailing list and for what I see there, using InnoDB tables (the only way to have foreign keys, transactions, and row level locking for MySQL) makes MySQL slower and adds complexity to tuning the database. See this thread for example http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/148832 . So when someone says that PostgreSQL without tuning is 5 times slower than MySQL retrieving the same query, it is quite right to also say that MySQL InnoDB without tuning is 5 times slower than MySQL MyISAM.
In my opinion you might consider MySQL only when you don't need the features provided by PostgreSQL (and even then data consistency and durability issues favor PostgreSQL) because if you need them, your developers need to implement them and do extra work, spending more time and money. It was already mentioned but I'll post this link again http://sql-info.de/mysql/ . IMHO if you are not aware of these gotchas they can also increase development time because some things are too different from regular/logical behavior (or common sense if you will) of any other database.
Kaarel
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
