[ic] postgres vs mysql

Dan B db@cyclonehq.dnsalias.net
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:40:04 -0800

>security/permissions system.  Mysql now has the start of replication, I
>would expect to see that coming in postgres also.

PostgreSQL has replication now too (as of a few weeks ago).  It's already 
checked into CVS for 7.1.  You can read up on it from the 
postgresql-hackers archive, but it's a result of the www.erserver.com 
project funded by Great Bridge.

I challenge all of you to read 
Caveat Emptor.
It's Tim Perdue's review of the two databases, including how they each 
applied to sourceforge.  SourceForge started out on mysql, but it would 
have problems when it started getting too many concurrent connections, 
MySQL would begin causing timeouts on the page loads, probably because of 
the tabel-level locking (and this was on a 4 way zeon) serving the backend 
to their .php code.

Even though, when mysql was under a small load, it would pump pages out 2x 
as fast as PostgreSQL.  But when he tested Postgresql, it would pump pages 
out slower than mysql, but it could handle three times the load of 
concurrent connections without slowing down.

Mysql = fast car that can't tow much weight
Postgresql = train that goes the same speed no matter how many cars you put 
behind it.

>     Mysql does seem to still be more widely used by far, it does have a
>serious foothold, and there is nothing wrong with it.

One thing I like about Mysql is it gets a lot of driver attention.  The 
perl DBD drivers are very well built IMHO.  Whereas postgresql's I think 
aren't exactly in the limelight (can't complain though).