From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | John Wells <jb(at)sourceillustrated(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Humor me: Postgresql vs. MySql (esp. licensing) |
Date: | 2003-10-08 21:23:50 |
Message-ID: | 3F848066.7090904@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hello,
Here is the simple thing about MySQL licensing. It is GPL. If you
modify the mySQL source or you link a proprietary app to mySQL without
a commercial license. You must distrubute your changes and or
application as GPL or GPL compatibile.
As far as speed is concerned: PostgreSQL is faster under
transactional/heavy loaded systems.
MySQL is very fast for "Hey, I need to get a web page up that has some
basic dynamic data"
MySQL is not ACID compliant, do not be fooled. The easiest argument is
this:
If you have a 32 bit integer column, and you try to insert a 64 bit
number... logical thought would suggest that the database should
throw an exception (which is a requirement of the 'C' in ACID) or fail
in some way. MySQL will not fail, instead it will insert a truncated
value of the 64 bit number and thus screw all of your data in the future.
There are others which I am sure MANY people can point out.
Sincerely,
Joshua Drake
John Wells wrote:
>Yes, I know you've seen the above subject before, so please be gentle with
>the flamethrowers.
>
>I'm preparing to enter a discussion with management at my company
>regarding going forward as either a MySql shop or a Postgresql shop.
>
>It's my opinion that we should be using PG, because of the full ACID
>support, and the license involved. A consultant my company hired before
>bringing me in is pushing hard for MySql, citing speed and community
>support, as well as ACID support.
>
>My biggest concern with MySQL is licensing. We need to keep costs low,
>and last I remember the parent company was being pretty strict on "fair
>use" under the GPL. If I recall, they even said a company would have to
>license the commercial version if it were simply used operationally within
>the company.
>
>Also, I was under the impression that Postgresql had pretty much caught up
>with MySql in the speed category...is this not the case?
>
>Finally, ACID support in mysql always seemed kind of a hack....perhaps
>this has changed?
>
>Thanks for any input (armament ;) ) you can provide.
>
>John
>
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Busby | 2003-10-08 21:46:15 | Cross database foreign key workaround? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-10-08 21:14:50 | Re: Replication Bundled with Main Source. |