« Open source police force | Main | Google as a shield from RIAA lawsuits »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Robert Lee

1) Competition Is Good
2) PostgreSQL is not even a little compatible with MySQL...calling one the other will only confuse the heck out of people.
3) MySQL has many pros vs Postgres, like speed (via MyIsam), great administrative tools, and a ton a non-transferable talent.

N

> Why not release a proprietary licensed PostGreSQL under the name MySQL 7.0?

It would be pointless to do so and it will confuse their market. Plus it would only help speed up Postgres adoption (unless that was what you intended to do in the first place). MySQL and Postgres support two slightly different SQL dialects. They also implement different cataloging systems, different authorization/authentication models, different configuration file layouts, and different database dump formats. In other words, you cannot simply rebrand Postgres as MySQL and "no one will know the difference".

mtg

Ok guys, this was a punch line which goal was to emphasize the absurdity of the current approach. Next time I'll post a smiley...

mtg

e5rebel

http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=738&blogid=14


Here is an interview with Marten Mickos, formerly CEO of MySQL, and now head of Sun's database group, trying to explain what is going on.

MySQL Storage Engine

The beauty of the MySQL model is that it can foster commercial extensions, which are then able to support themselves. I believe that this is part of the maturation of open source. While Sun/MySQL develop their own storage engines, there are others building plug compatible storage engines. Some are general purpose, whilc others go after specific niches. I was talking with the product manager for DB2 who was blown away at the innovation at the fringes like storage engines. That simply couldn't happen with DB2. I think ultimately, there is a balance between open source and commercial extensions that enables a thriving ecosystem.

Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA

Mr. Lee:

Competition is good, but duplicating past efforts with inferior technology is not.

PostgreSQL is nearly ISO SQL conformant, MySQL is not. It is MySQL which is not compatible.

MyISAM looses your data fast, and doesn’t scale. PostgreSQL not only has great tools, but it is much easier to manage in the long run. And non-transferable talent in MySQL means people who are wasting their talents in idiosyncrasies, not real features.

MySQL Storage Engine, this is an absurd approach. The plugin system only means MySQL will never be safe, nor fast, nor consistent, nor feature-rich. Plugins are nice as extensions, but where they belong: in user space, not in the engine. Witness the miriad programming languages and tools made in them PostgreSQL supports.

Ries van Twisk

> Why not release a proprietary licensed PostGreSQL under the name MySQL 7.0?
I think we already past Aprils fools day....

@mtg: PostgreSQL outperforms MyISAM easely on more complex queries, adn even for simple queries you are very close. Specially when it comes to updates/inserts on a buzy server

3) I think that MySQL is just sitting in a different market then PostgreSQL works in. Both of there place.

For any business application I would consider PostgreSQL way over MySQL, for any simple web stuff I might consider MySQL. But to be honest I find administrating a MySQL DB more complicated then a PostgreSQL. This mostly because I do expect a crash of a table at least once a year.

I totally agree with Leandro specialy with the MySQL people wasting talent which I do find in the MySQL community, but just much less then in a PostgreSQL community. You can try this for yoruself on the freenode channel. (ask something complicated).

Ries

The comments to this entry are closed.