[ic] postgres vs mysql (fwd)

Michael Widenius monty@mysql.com
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:04:13 +0200 (EET)

Dan> Thanks for writing the list, Monty.  I enjoyed reading your posts.  Except
Dan> for the fact that now I'm confused about which database I should use
Dan> again.  :-)  I started out on Mysql, then converted to pgsql, now I'm back
Dan> to mysql.  Go figure.  Also, it is great to read one project lead-developer
Dan> talk about competetive projects.  You do a fine job Monty, read one of
Dan> Linus' recent posts for contrast:

Dan> <LINUS>
Dan> And I have to say that I absolutely despise the BSD people.  They did
Dan> sendfile() after both Linux and HP-UX had done it, and they must have
Dan> known about both implementations.  And they chose the HP-UX braindamage,
Dan> and even brag about the fact that they were stupid and didn't understand
Dan> TCP_CORK (they don't say so in those exact words, of course - they just
Dan> show that they were stupid and clueless by the things they brag about).

Dan> Oh, well. Not everybody can be as goodlooking as me. It's a curse.

Dan>                  Linus
Dan> </LINUS>
Dan> That was a few days ago.  Isn't Linus great?  I digress.

I assume we can't all be as modest as Linus :)

Dan> At 11:12 PM 1/18/2001 +0200, Monty wrote:

>> Open areas are, among many others, a Windows port, repliction, hot

Dan> Windows Port of pgsql seems to be coming along nicely,
Dan> actually. has a nice "Setup.exe" for 7.0.2 that can
Dan> be installed even by the lowliest PHB's.  (And seems to run pretty well too).

Thanks for the information;  I didn't know that they had this working
already;  Time to do some benchmarking on windows...

Dan> And I am very excited to see how PostgreSQL's replication (recently checked
Dan> into CVS) will stack up against MySQL's battle-hardened replication.  I'm
Dan> not suprised at how far MySQL's replication has come after the much reputed
Dan> donation of $100,000 by Slashdot.org to MySQL development!  A few months
Dan> later we now have Great Bridge following suit with it's eRServer project.

>> better ODBC support [...]

Dan> I've been wondering about this.  When GreatBridge released their
Dan> "benchmarks" for PostgreSQL vs mysql (3.22) that were done with by ODBC
Dan> interface, many mentioned the fact that Mysql hasn't performance optimized
Dan> their ODBC driver at the time.  I figured it was more because of the
Dan> version they used (3.22).  What do you think?

One of the problems with the benchmark was that GreatBride in the
beginning used our ODBC driver compiled for debugging; They did later
run the benchmarks again with our normal (optimized) ODBC driver but
they still refused to use our recommended MySQL version, but used
instead an old version of MySQL on a system that wasn't patched for
multi-threaded applications;  One problem with Linux is that if one
wants to have good performance with a multi-threaded program one must
patch gcc; Our MySQL 3.23 binary includes some of the needed patches,
but GreatBridge wasn't interested to do any testing with this version.

There was so many bad things done with this particular benchmark (I
have already posted a lot of things about this in different forums, so
there is no idea to discuss this further); The only good thing that
come out of it was that Compaq made an open source version of a
similar benchmark, so now we will be able to do an open source
benchmark of both products to get some real figures!  This will give
both groups some better indication of what we need to improve upon,
so this is a good thing!

Dan> [Thread onTopic]
Dan> How well does Interchange work with ODBC as a backend?  DBD::ODBC is 0.28
Dan> and released 23rd March 2000 -- so it's probably not being actively
Dan> maintained.  (Ha ha!  Now my post is on topic!).  ;-P

sorry, but I can't for the moment recollect anything special about
InterChange and ODBC.

Dan> [/Thread]