Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PostgreSQL 9.0 Final Release Available Now

postgresql.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: PostgreSQL 9.0 Final Release Available Now

#21

Post by jacobian »

gaius wrote: post #18
jacobian wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, MySQL has focused on ease of use, speed out-of-the-box, and aimed to be a lightweight, "personal" database (hence the "My"). This fast & light focus meant that certain "BigDB" features (triggers, transactions, ...) fell by the wayside. On the other hand, PostgreSQL has historically focused on correctness and full support for advanced database features, looking to supplant Oracle and SQLServer. This mean…

It's more subtle than that. The MySQL people never really understood relational databases or the way they were used. Back in the 90s, their documentation was full of explanations about why you didn't need foreign keys (too slow) or transactions (do it in your application if you need it) etc etc etc. They "grew up" a bit as the years went by and grudgingly added a few of these features in as an afterthought. But if yo…

Like I said, I'm a big PostgreSQL fan. However, I really don't think you're giving the MySQL developers enough credit here. Smart people -- and I maintain that the MySQL developers are a whole hell of a lot smarter than you or I -- can have differing opinions about trade-offs, and speed-vs-correctness is one of the oldest.

Proper implementations of foreign keys are transactions are slower, and many applications really don't need those features. Like you, I disagree with the choice to value speed over correctness, but unlike you I don't see it as an indication that the MySQL developers were idiots or immature.

Or, to look at it another way: if MySQL's such a load of crap, how'd it ever get so popular? It's not for a lack of alternatives. It's because MySQL offered a feature -- speed and ease of use -- that simply wasn't available elsewhere.

Re: PostgreSQL 9.0 Final Release Available Now

#22

Post by gdulli »

jacobian wrote: post #21
gaius wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more subtle than that. The MySQL people never really understood relational databases or the way they were used. Back in the 90s, their documentation was full of explanations about why you didn't need foreign keys (too slow) or transactions (do it in your application if you need it) etc etc etc. They "grew up" a bit as the years went by and grudgingly added a few of these features in as an afterthought. But if yo…

Like I said, I'm a big PostgreSQL fan. However, I really don't think you're giving the MySQL developers enough credit here. Smart people -- and I maintain that the MySQL developers are a whole hell of a lot smarter than you or I -- can have differing opinions about trade-offs, and speed-vs-correctness is one of the oldest. Proper implementations of foreign keys are transactions are slower, and many applications reall…

> Or, to look at it another way: if MySQL's such a load of crap, how'd it ever get so popular?

Justin Bieber.

Re: PostgreSQL 9.0 Final Release Available Now

#23

Post by kijinbear »

gdulli wrote: post #22
jacobian wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, I'm a big PostgreSQL fan. However, I really don't think you're giving the MySQL developers enough credit here. Smart people -- and I maintain that the MySQL developers are a whole hell of a lot smarter than you or I -- can have differing opinions about trade-offs, and speed-vs-correctness is one of the oldest. Proper implementations of foreign keys are transactions are slower, and many applications reall…

> Or, to look at it another way: if MySQL's such a load of crap, how'd it ever get so popular? Justin Bieber.

Even worse, IE6. The fact that it initially offered crappy implementations of some features that users were looking for doesn't make it any less crappy.

Re: PostgreSQL 9.0 Final Release Available Now

#24

Post by kijinbear »

biog wrote: post #14
siglesias wrote: post #8

Can anybody point to a good discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of PostgreSQL relative to MySQL? Or can you weigh in briefly about the tradeoffs between the two? EDIT: Okay, must've touched a few nerves there. Sorry. Question was asked in earnest.

I prefer PostgreSQL. The fact that it doesn't have many of MySQL's limitations is a big plus. Just he ability to add a column on a large table without locking the thing for a huge amount of time would be great for us. PostgreSQL can also use multiple indexes which, again, is a serious plus. The error messages that PostgreSQL returns can be much more informative than MySQL. At times when you screw up a query instead o…

PostgreSQL forces you to write proper queries. MySQL is designed to accommodate lousy practices, and all those implicit type conversions and non-standard syntax will come back to bite you as a big WTF.

Other reasons I like PostgreSQL: more data types (MySQL doesn't even have a boolean type), partial indexing (a godsend when you have large tables), ability to use multiple indexes when querying, full-text search and ACID are not mutually exclusive, and multiple procedural languages.

[edit] Oops, didn't mean to make this a reply.

Re: PostgreSQL 9.0 Final Release Available Now

#25

Post by prodigal_erik »

kijinbear wrote: post #24
biog wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer PostgreSQL. The fact that it doesn't have many of MySQL's limitations is a big plus. Just he ability to add a column on a large table without locking the thing for a huge amount of time would be great for us. PostgreSQL can also use multiple indexes which, again, is a serious plus. The error messages that PostgreSQL returns can be much more informative than MySQL. At times when you screw up a query instead o…

PostgreSQL forces you to write proper queries. MySQL is designed to accommodate lousy practices, and all those implicit type conversions and non-standard syntax will come back to bite you as a big WTF. Other reasons I like PostgreSQL: more data types (MySQL doesn't even have a boolean type), partial indexing (a godsend when you have large tables), ability to use multiple indexes when querying, full-text search and AC…

This. I was appalled when I realized that MySQL will quietly seem to execute

  select x from y group by z
x isn't a grouping column or an aggregate function, so where does it get the value for each group? It just arbitrarily picks a value from one of the rows, even if the other rows had different values!

Re: PostgreSQL 9.0 Final Release Available Now

#26

Post by rimantas »

kijinbear wrote: post #23
gdulli wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or, to look at it another way: if MySQL's such a load of crap, how'd it ever get so popular? Justin Bieber.

Even worse, IE6. The fact that it initially offered crappy implementations of some features that users were looking for doesn't make it any less crappy.

This comparison is right in the sense what it gets wrong: the time and context. IE6 is sure crappy by today's standards, but back in 2001 it was the best browser you could get: Netscape lost it since release of Netscape 4 which was the crap. And hey, IE6 even got box model fixed! Too bad it had no competition and stagnated till Firefox appeared and started kicking IE's ass. In similar vein a lot of "criticism" of MySQL is done by those not aware of the latest developments of this DB, different engines it supports and different modes it can work in. Well, at least "MySQL does not support transactions" cannot be heard anymore.
Post reply on HN