161–170 of 182 posts
It doesn't need an expensive website or loads of devrel or non-grassroots event management - those are what you do to simulate success until maybe you make it. It needs smart people over a long period of time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the early 2000s, MySQL was: - way easier to install - way easier to maintain (not vacuuming, etc) - and had a replication story. So you had startups which created their MVP on some shared webhost, which had MySQL and nearly non had pg. as those startups graduated into enterprise fame, they never left MySQL but instead fixed its problems along the way.
The mysql replication story was the big thing for me in the early/mid 2000s. Back then postgres replication seemed like every option was a brittle/incomplete 3rd party hack with different sets of tradeoffs. Postgres also had a reputation for being correct but slower. The perf differential disappeared a) as postgres got faster and b) mysql got more reliable/robust.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.0/release.htm vs https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/release-9-0.html which added full windows support.
If you were paying attention, postgres always the better option, based on my experience starting around 2002 or so. MySQL had the better marketing in its name and was arguably a bit easier to get going from the start, but postgres was always more advanced and IMHO once you got past the most basic usage made a lot more sense in how it's configured. The fact that it was the M in the LAMP stack gave it a huge edge too.…
In the early 2000s, MySQL was: - way easier to install - way easier to maintain (not vacuuming, etc) - and had a replication story. So you had startups which created their MVP on some shared webhost, which had MySQL and nearly non had pg. as those startups graduated into enterprise fame, they never left MySQL but instead fixed its problems along the way.
The only correct answer to this question is 2012-09-10, the PostgreSQL 9.2 release date. In that release they unveiled JSON datatypes, and developers were able to have their cake and eat it too. https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/postgresql-92-released... https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/What%27s_new_in_PostgreSQL_...
I see a lot of comment reflecting on MySQL and oracle vs postgresql. Anyone with experience of MSSQL and PostgreSQL who'd like to comment on how it they compare?
My experience says that PG wins in the SQL language feature department. However IMHO MySQL still wins in operational efficiency and performance. These are things that only start to matter when you scale your database and most people never actually reach those sizes.
Postgres was cool. Now SQLite is cool. In a few years .INI files will be cool. Fads gonna fad.
If you were paying attention, postgres always the better option, based on my experience starting around 2002 or so. MySQL had the better marketing in its name and was arguably a bit easier to get going from the start, but postgres was always more advanced and IMHO once you got past the most basic usage made a lot more sense in how it's configured. The fact that it was the M in the LAMP stack gave it a huge edge too.…
In the early 2000s, MySQL was: - way easier to install - way easier to maintain (not vacuuming, etc) - and had a replication story. So you had startups which created their MVP on some shared webhost, which had MySQL and nearly non had pg. as those startups graduated into enterprise fame, they never left MySQL but instead fixed its problems along the way.
Postgres has the safety of the data as its utmost goal, while people will just rename genes because Excel automatically misinterprets them as dates.
i used mysql for almost 20 years, since 3.23 and in the last 4 years i am exclusively using postgres (because of the hype and i thought i am missing out), and its not my cup of tea. i just love mysql's hackable storage engine (particularly the new lsmt engines), and i hate toast so much, not to mention the permission system which is so convoluted and it is so easy to shoot yourself in the foot. and of course it does…
curious - Postgres isn't hackable enough for you? I've found it much more amenable to changes in say, the storage engine, than mysql ever was.
nothing against postgres, i just think its a bit overhyped and its also harder to squeeze it in the cloud's ridiculous iops prices