On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:26:34AM +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote: > Personally my opinion is that there is no point in pushing PostgreSQL > everywhere -- if there is no siginifcant performance gain, most managers > will refuse it, on the grounds that "if it ain't (too) broke, don't fix it". > The real places to "attack at" are the BIG dbs, the dataware housing > applications. Places where MySQL is not used, because someones > select count(*) should not kill the database. Because the queries > take few hours to complete "by design". This should be doable. :)
The problem with limiting ourselves to going after only the 'high end' of databases is that MySQL is also pushing in that direction, but they have the advantage of a much larger user base than us. So in the not-to-distant future, a lot of people who are looking to come off of Oracle will look at both MySQL and PostgreSQL (in fact I'm sure there's already some people moving from Oracle to MySQL). When MySQL is at that point, which database do you think executives will be choosing? The one with a very large userbase and lots of marketing and PR that they've heard plenty about, or the one that might theoretically be technically superior but has a small userbase and they've never heard of? And if the technical people in the company are MySQL users, because that's the database they cut their teeth on... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
