Forum: Ruby on Rails Postgresql vs MySQL

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
E6dd9cedee99f9d02e5f87d80ee0e681?d=identicon&s=25 warrens (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 20:18
(Received via mailing list)
Is there any reason to avoid using postgresql for small web apps?  That
is, is it's
overhead so large that the lighter MySQL will work substantially better
for small apps on
small machines?  Or are they very similar in performance and
configuration?

I've used MySQL but postgresql has its appeals and I'm wondering if I
need to keep MySQL
around at all.

On the other hand, Postgresql claims that "Windows does not support
Unicode" and you can't
have Unicode fields on postgresql on Windows.  This is a big mistake.
See:
http://pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/faq/FAQ...

Warren
B1102f65359ee629df508c7857f03b1c?d=identicon&s=25 sitharus (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 20:30
(Received via mailing list)
On 17/11/2005, at 8:16 AM, Warren Seltzer wrote:

> Windows.  This is a big mistake.  See:
> http://pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/faq/FAQ...

I've been using PostgreSQL for a while now and I've never seen any
performance issues. My blog runs on Typo backed by PostgreSQL and my
latest rails app (http://wishlists.sitharus.com/ - very much in beta
at the moment) runs on Postgres.

As for the Windows Unicode issue, Postgres on Windows is a very new
system, it's quite possible there are issues they still need to work
around. I don't use Windows, so I wouldn't know.
81194a50c0f9bd95d7832a77fdf371bd?d=identicon&s=25 cool_screen_name90001 (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 20:30
(Received via mailing list)
--- Warren Seltzer <warrens@actcom.net.il> wrote:

> Is there any reason to avoid using postgresql for
> small web apps?

None at all, IMO.

> That is, is it's
> overhead so large that the lighter MySQL will work
> substantially better for small apps on
> small machines?

I find PostgreSQL to be quite nimble. It's my MySQL
process that seems to inexplicably use CPU cycles,
even when it's not busy.

> Or are they very similar in
> performance and configuration?

I find PostgreSQL performs as well as, and probably
better. I also find it easier to configure and even
compile from source. PostgreSQL is even easier to
admin, since auto-vacuuming has been integrated into
it.

> I've used MySQL but postgresql has its appeals and
> I'm wondering if I need to keep MySQL
> around at all.

Well, unfortunately there are many apps out there that
are coded only for MySQL (like Wordpress)...

> On the other hand, Postgresql claims that "Windows
> does not support Unicode" and you can't
> have Unicode fields on postgresql on Windows.  This
> is a big mistake.  See:
>
http://pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/faq/FAQ...

What do you mean "a big mistake"? By Microsoft? Or
PostgreSQL?

csn


>
> Warren
>
> > _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>




__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
B84d42a3a5c343f8fc6ab7d7f47fd3f5?d=identicon&s=25 robby.lists (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 20:34
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 21:16 +0200, Warren Seltzer wrote:
> Is there any reason to avoid using postgresql for small web apps?
> That is, is it's overhead so large that the lighter MySQL will work
> substantially better for small apps on small machines?  Or are they
> very similar in performance and configuration?
>
> I've used MySQL but postgresql has its appeals and I'm wondering if I
> need to keep MySQL around at all.

PostgreSQL works great on small to large. I use it on simple stuff like
my blog, rubyurl, my bands websites for just a guest book... and I've
worked on systems that had a few TeraBytes of data in the past. Several
of our client projects at PLANET ARGON involve migrating from existing
MySQL schemas to PostgreSQL. Rails has actually helped speed up our
migration process to about 60 seconds[1] of waiting time... and maybe
5-10 minutes of getting AR::Migration setup.

PostgreSQL is teh bomb...and it works GREAT with PostgreSQL. :-)

The license is also a bit more attractive for commercial usage.

On a side note... you just started a holy war. ;-)

[1] http://rubyurl.com/Qwj

Good luck with your decision!

-Robby

p.s. constraints rock!

--
/******************************************************
* Robby Russell, Founder.Developer.Geek
* PLANET ARGON, Rails Development, Consulting & Hosting
* Portland, Oregon  | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068
* www.planetargon.com | www.robbyonrails.com
* Programming Rails   | www.programmingrails.com
*******************************************************/
615bdd4621a6d581d8e1abc854d8b5db?d=identicon&s=25 email (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 20:52
(Received via mailing list)
Robby,
I'm currently using MySQL, and one of the things that holds me back
about
PostgreSQL is CocoaMySQL, which is teh bomb, and rocks :). Do you know
of a
similar solution for PostgreSQL and an OS X client?

Dave
81194a50c0f9bd95d7832a77fdf371bd?d=identicon&s=25 cool_screen_name90001 (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 20:58
(Received via mailing list)
An OSX port of PgAdmin III is in the works:
http://www.pgadmin.org/screenshots.php

I just use phppgadmin and psql (command line) for
everything.

csn


--- Dave Ringoen <email@daveringoen.com> wrote:

> On 11/16/05 12:31 PM, "Robby Russell"
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>




__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
280b41a88665fd8c699e83a9a25ef949?d=identicon&s=25 steve (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 21:16
(Received via mailing list)
On Nov 16, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Dave Ringoen wrote:

> CocoaMySQL, which is teh bomb, and rocks

Other nice MySQL tools are avaialble, for free, from MySQL itself,
are MySQL Administrator and MySQL Query Builder.  Both are excellent
and run on OS X.

For pgsql check out pgAdmin III.

--Steve
57e43b90a24b3b10ddcf3ca244a1ed11?d=identicon&s=25 pdsyahoo-rails (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 21:19
(Received via mailing list)
I have been using MySQL 5 with great success!  Thought about switching,
but the MySQL license with 5 is much nicer for commercial use.

Warren Seltzer <warrens@actcom.net.il> wrote:   Message    Is there any
reason to avoid using  postgresql for small web apps?  That is, is it's
overhead so large that the  lighter MySQL will work substantially better
for small apps on small  machines?  Or are they very similar in
performance and  configuration?

 I've used MySQL but postgresql has its  appeals and I'm wondering if I
need to keep MySQL around at all.

 On the other hand, Postgresql claims that  "Windows does not support
Unicode" and you can't have Unicode fields on  postgresql on Windows.
This is a big mistake.  See:
 http://pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/faq/FAQ...

 Warren
E6dd9cedee99f9d02e5f87d80ee0e681?d=identicon&s=25 warrens (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 21:43
(Received via mailing list)
The "Big mistake" is in the Postgresql FAQ in saying that Windows
doesn't support Unicode.
XP supports Unicode very well indeed.  The FAQ I referenced prattles on
about Slovenian
code pages, of all things.  Windows "Code pages" have been superseded by
Unicode. If you
go to http://msdn.microsoft.com and search for "Unicode" you get an
eyeful.

Having defended the undefendable, however, I'd like to know if
postgresql really still
doesn't support Unicode on windows, as I plan to develop on WindowsXP
and deploy on Linux.

Warren Seltzer
A82ba1167f4d4a8d1de63820e576a87f?d=identicon&s=25 robby (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 21:49
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 12:50 -0700, Dave Ringoen wrote:
> Robby,
> I'm currently using MySQL, and one of the things that holds me back
> about
> PostgreSQL is CocoaMySQL, which is teh bomb, and rocks :). Do you know
> of a
> similar solution for PostgreSQL and an OS X client?
>
> Dave
>

I'm a command-line junkie for SQL. :-)

pgadmin exists... but I don't use it myself.

With ActiveRecord::Migration + script/console, who really needs to do
much in the way of crazy sql stuff anymore?

-Robby

--
/******************************************************
* Robby Russell, Founder.Developer.Geek
* PLANET ARGON, Rails Development, Consulting & Hosting
* Portland, Oregon  | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068
* www.planetargon.com | www.robbyonrails.com
* Programming Rails   | www.programmingrails.com
*******************************************************/
895715ccced713d61a5cce1d492a958d?d=identicon&s=25 kennethlove (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 21:49
(Received via mailing list)
PGAdmin 3 works fine on OS X.


On 11/16/05, CSN <cool_screen_name90001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Dave Ringoen <email@daveringoen.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rails mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>


--
=> the blog from beyond <=
=> www.eyeheartzombies.com <=
81194a50c0f9bd95d7832a77fdf371bd?d=identicon&s=25 cool_screen_name90001 (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 21:49
(Received via mailing list)
I guess if you like transferring dumps all the time...

Go ask pg-general:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2005-...


csn

--- Warren Seltzer <warrens@actcom.net.il> wrote:

> to know if postgresql really still
> rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> Subject: Re: [Rails] Postgresql vs MySQL
>
>  ...
>
>
http://pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/faq/FAQ...
> > > _______________________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
> one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
>
>
>





__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
E6dd9cedee99f9d02e5f87d80ee0e681?d=identicon&s=25 warrens (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 21:55
(Received via mailing list)
"On a side note... you just started a holy war."

Sorry about the jihad --  I promise not to actually kill anybody...

Warren
6e672922c21a5298f2a666ecb1c11d7c?d=identicon&s=25 phil (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 22:10
(Received via mailing list)
Robby Russell wrote:
> The license is also a bit more attractive for commercial usage.
>

This can be pretty important for certain commercial uses.  I'm fighting
with a commercial product now that chose MySQL as a base and I'm rather
disappointed that I'm forced to pay a yearly license fee as an end user.

I like the fact that PostgreSQL is built from the ground up as a real
SQL engine, with lots of features.  It's SQL syntax is standards based
and not as arbitrary as some other implementations.  Assuming you are
properly using indexes, it is mighty fast for tables with many rows.
Something I always do it tweak the service config to give it tons of
memory, too.

I think most distinctions which gave MySQL an 'edge' in the past are
moot pionts now.  It's not significantly faster (if at all), it's not
massively more popular (that is to an extent where it impacts support
and debugging, anyway), and companies seem to be less sensitive to
having to pay something to make them feel warm and fuzzy.


Phil
B9a732fc30c32098347a0177c75ee27b?d=identicon&s=25 jeroen (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 23:35
(Received via mailing list)
CSN wrote:
> --- Warren Seltzer <warrens@actcom.net.il> wrote:
>
>
>>Is there any reason to avoid using postgresql for
>>small web apps?
>
>
> None at all, IMO.

I much prefer postgresql for all sorts of reasons. The only downside I
can think of is backup/restore is a little more straightforward on
mysql. Especially backing up and restoring a whole series of database in
one go. We had to write a little script to do that, but maybe its easier
these days..
Oh yeah and sometimes, even with 8.0 it's a pain to change column's
datatype, but maybe that holds true also for mysql if it's using views
and stored procedures etc.

But I much prefer it over mysql as it has nice features and is more
standards compliant. In mysql for instance you can (could?) have
datetime values like 0000-00-00 00:00:00 and the whole set and enum
things are just ugly.

HTH,

Jeroen
F48118fe74b0c7f6fd82a0ee422fa34e?d=identicon&s=25 snacktime (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 23:35
(Received via mailing list)
On 11/16/05, Warren Seltzer <warrens@actcom.net.il> wrote:
> http://pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/faq/FAQ...
>  Warren
>


I don't think any of your worries have a real foundation, but IMO for a
small non critical webapp it really doesn't matter which one you use.
Pick
the one you like and use it.

Chris
9e7c9c07e64a6b7b075097831c360d53?d=identicon&s=25 billkatz (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 23:47
(Received via mailing list)
Browsing around the web, I see many outdated comparisons of MySQL and
PostgreSQL, but no comprehensive pros/cons between the two recent
platforms,
MySQL 4.1.x (and 5.0) versus PostgreSQL8.1. In particular, I wonder
about
contentions that:

1) PostgreSQLhas better data integrity than MySQL. This would make me
opt
for Postgres if I felt it were true. MySQL, though, has a pretty
impressive
array of large businesses using their software. Is there an
architectural
reason why Postgres 8.1 would be better than MySQL 4.1.x InnoDB for data
integrity?

2) MySQL is faster than PostgreSQL. I believe this is mostly a MySQL
MyISAM
comparison, so it would only be useful for aspects of your web app that
didn't need transactional support.

I have gone with MySQL because I took the path of least resistance from
my
first PHP/MySQL web apps. If 37signals say constraints are good, then I
guess it's good to have a constraint of being one man with one (very)
small
brain and not that much time already trying to learn parts of an
OS-to-database stack. I'm not going to delegate business logic to the
database in the form of stored procedures. I'm still undecided whether
triggers and stored procedures make sense for my app.

Other reasons I like MySQL:
- It's driven by a company and I believe this is a good way to drive
open
source projects. That's not to say PostgreSQL lacks orbiting support
companies, but MySQL is a fairly large company.
- There's a good selection of clients. Cocoa was mentioned. I'm using
Webyog
for Windows. DBDesigner and the upcoming MySQL Workbench are nice DB
design
tools.
- No shortage of documentation and books, including proven strategies of
replication at places like Yahoo.
- (blue sky) Potential for radical upgrade using in-memory clusters.
Yeah,
I'm only dreaming about days when I'd actually need something like MySQL
Cluster, and it's a very different engine than standard MyISAM and
InnoDB,
but man, the specs look great. In a couple of years when memory is even
cheaper and 64-bit CPUs are the norm for new server boxes, I wonder how
much
traffic a "simple" 3 box cluster could handle.
B1102f65359ee629df508c7857f03b1c?d=identicon&s=25 sitharus (Guest)
on 2005-11-16 23:53
(Received via mailing list)
On 17/11/2005, at 11:46 AM, Bill Katz wrote:

> Browsing around the web, I see many outdated comparisons of MySQL
> and PostgreSQL, but no comprehensive pros/cons between the two
> recent platforms, MySQL 4.1.x (and 5.0) versus PostgreSQL8.1. In
> particular, I wonder about contentions that:
>
> 1) PostgreSQLhas better data integrity than MySQL. This would make
> me opt for Postgres if I felt it were true. MySQL, though, has a
> pretty impressive array of large businesses using their software.
> Is there an architectural reason why Postgres 8.1 would be better
> than MySQL 4.1.x InnoDB for data integrity?

ACID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACID is a fairly good outline).
The only real ACID backend MySQL has (InnoDB, nothing else is really
ACID) has recently been purchased by Oracle, who aren't exactly best
mates with MySQL AB.

Oh, and MVCC means Postgres is very fast with transactions.

> 2) MySQL is faster than PostgreSQL. I believe this is mostly a
> MySQL MyISAM comparison, so it would only be useful for aspects of
> your web app that didn't need transactional support.

Not really true any longer. With some performance tuning - eg
appropriate indexes and cache sizes, PostgreSQL is supposed to be
pretty close to MyISAM's speed, and that's with ACID compliance.
9e7c9c07e64a6b7b075097831c360d53?d=identicon&s=25 billkatz (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 00:02
(Received via mailing list)
On 11/16/05, Phillip Hutchings <sitharus@sitharus.com> wrote:
>
>
> ACID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACID is a fairly good outline).
> The only real ACID backend MySQL has (InnoDB, nothing else is really
> ACID) has recently been purchased by Oracle, who aren't exactly best
> mates with MySQL AB


That doesn't sound good. What does this mean for the future of the
InnoDB
engine? It's open source, so they can't remove it, but I guess the
support
can substantially decrease.

Not really true any longer. With some performance tuning - eg
> appropriate indexes and cache sizes, PostgreSQL is supposed to be
> pretty close to MyISAM's speed, and that's with ACID compliance.


Have there been any benchmarks published? Given my resources and time,
though, the most applicable benchmark would be performance using
standard
configurations with simple modifications only -- no heroic
reconfigurations.
That's also why I like MySQL. It has a reputation for being fast and
reliable out of the box.
B1102f65359ee629df508c7857f03b1c?d=identicon&s=25 sitharus (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 00:08
(Received via mailing list)
On 17/11/2005, at 12:01 PM, Bill Katz wrote:

> On 11/16/05, Phillip Hutchings <sitharus@sitharus.com> wrote:
>
> ACID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACID is a fairly good outline).
> The only real ACID backend MySQL has (InnoDB, nothing else is really
> ACID) has recently been purchased by Oracle, who aren't exactly best
> mates with MySQL AB
>
> That doesn't sound good. What does this mean for the future of the
> InnoDB engine? It's open source, so they can't remove it, but I
> guess the support can substantially decrease.

As it's open source I'm assuming someone else will maintain it, but
there wasn't a huge development team beforehand. MySQL AB will
probably hire someone.

> Not really true any longer. With some performance tuning - eg
> appropriate indexes and cache sizes, PostgreSQL is supposed to be
> pretty close to MyISAM's speed, and that's with ACID compliance.
>
> Have there been any benchmarks published? Given my resources and
> time, though, the most applicable benchmark would be performance
> using standard configurations with simple modifications only -- no
> heroic reconfigurations. That's also why I like MySQL. It has a
> reputation for being fast and reliable out of the box.

Maybe I should do some, I have both MySQL and PostgreSQL on all my
machines. They're not amazing machines, but I'll see if I can get
some figures if I have time.
B84d42a3a5c343f8fc6ab7d7f47fd3f5?d=identicon&s=25 robby.lists (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 00:26
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 12:06 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
> Maybe I should do some, I have both MySQL and PostgreSQL on all my
> machines. They're not amazing machines, but I'll see if I can get
> some figures if I have time.

Out of the box, PostgreSQL will be slightly slower. It assumes that you
are working with a bigger system and it can be fine-tuned to be fairly
fast.

The real test is when your database grows... MySQL gets slower...and
starves for more CPU...and PostgreSQL is the guy in the back room
playing Doom while it just works.



--
/******************************************************
* Robby Russell, Founder.Developer.Geek
* PLANET ARGON, Rails Development, Consulting & Hosting
* Portland, Oregon  | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068
* www.planetargon.com | www.robbyonrails.com
* Programming Rails   | www.programmingrails.com
*******************************************************/
B84d42a3a5c343f8fc6ab7d7f47fd3f5?d=identicon&s=25 robby.lists (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 00:29
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 23:33 +0100, Jeroen Houben wrote:
> I much prefer postgresql for all sorts of reasons. The only downside I
> datetime values like 0000-00-00 00:00:00 and the whole set and enum
> things are just ugly.
>

For what its worth... the largest record store (besides Amazon) is using
PostgreSQL.... oh and some little ruby project called Rails.

I interviewed Jeremy (bitsweat) and Derek Sivers and asked them for
their thoughts on this...

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/8274

-Robby
24d2f8804e6bb4b7ea6bd11e0a586470?d=identicon&s=25 jeremy (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 01:02
(Received via mailing list)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Nov 16, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Bill Katz wrote:
> Have there been any benchmarks published? Given my resources and
> time, though, the most applicable benchmark would be performance
> using standard configurations with simple modifications only -- no
> heroic reconfigurations. That's also why I like MySQL. It has a
> reputation for being fast and reliable out of the box.

All the AR-supported databases are fast and reliable out of the box.

All of the open-source options are very easy to set up and configure,
too.

Times (in bogus-units) for one run of the Active Record test suite:
  1670  SQLite 2.8.16
  1640  SQLite 3.2.7
  1380  MySQL 5.0.15
  1260  PostgreSQL 8.1

The typical MySQL complaints do not affect the everyday MySQL user
and are addressed in MySQL 5 nonetheless.

So, wherever you turn, you won't go wrong.  Don't obssess over it.

jeremy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFDe8hOAQHALep9HFYRAsqqAJ0TfRu0QrsiOSUbjs16nptqoadWugCgyWW0
95LmGhYJNfgGGneYYmgS0RM=
=P6A3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bce1d1b7c3ec7b577dcb42e254899e6b?d=identicon&s=25 michael (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 01:02
(Received via mailing list)
On Thursday 17 November 2005 00:01, Bill Katz wrote:
> On 11/16/05, Phillip Hutchings <sitharus@sitharus.com> wrote:
> > ACID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACID is a fairly good outline).
> > The only real ACID backend MySQL has (InnoDB, nothing else is
> > really ACID) has recently been purchased by Oracle, who aren't
> > exactly best mates with MySQL AB
>
> That doesn't sound good. What does this mean for the future of the
> InnoDB engine? It's open source, so they can't remove it, but I guess
> the support can substantially decrease.

The real problem appears to be that MySQL AB is dual-licensing MySQL. In
addition to the GPL version they're offering a commercial one. To be
able to do this with the included InnoDB, they in turn need a
commercial license of the latter, which is dual-licensed as well.

AFAIR, the commercial licensing terms MySQL AB has for InnoDB are to be
negotiated again some time next year. With Oracle being the new owner,
the deal might be worse than before. This is speculation, of course...

Michael

--
Michael Schuerig                  Airtight arguments have
mailto:michael@schuerig.de        vacuous conclusions.
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/   --A.O. Rorty, Explaining Emotions
9e7c9c07e64a6b7b075097831c360d53?d=identicon&s=25 billkatz (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 01:08
(Received via mailing list)
On 11/16/05, Robby Russell <robby.lists@planetargon.com> wrote:
>
> I interviewed Jeremy (bitsweat) and Derek Sivers and asked them for
> their thoughts on this...


Yeah, that was a good read. Sivers mentioned data-integrity issues as a
reason for the switch, and I got the impression it was because of the
numerous CDBaby subsystems (acct mgmt, audio backend, etc) that access
his
database independently of the web app. Do you know the particular
reasons?
Was it an "Application Database" versus "Integrated Database" issue, and
PostgreSQL is especially suited for the latter?

You also mention that as demand increases, MySQL needs more CPU relative
to
PostgreSQL. That seemed counter intuitive to me, given that MySQL has
presumably simpler database engines. Is the load handling related to use
of
pgsql's stored procedures and the like?

-Bill
81194a50c0f9bd95d7832a77fdf371bd?d=identicon&s=25 cool_screen_name90001 (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 01:14
(Received via mailing list)
--- Bill Katz <billkatz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Other reasons I like MySQL:
> - It's driven by a company and I believe this is a
> good way to drive open
> source projects. That's not to say PostgreSQL lacks
> orbiting support
> companies, but MySQL is a fairly large company.

PostgreSQL seems to have a lot of backing from Redhat.
I know they fund one of the key core developers.
Redhat also repackages PG as their own database product.




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
24d2f8804e6bb4b7ea6bd11e0a586470?d=identicon&s=25 jeremy (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 01:20
(Received via mailing list)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Nov 16, 2005, at 3:40 PM, Bill Katz wrote:
> that MySQL has presumably simpler database engines. Is the load
> handling related to use of pgsql's stored procedures and the like?

I don't know about > CPU as DB size increases (doesn't make sense to
me), but PostgreSQL does do far better query planning.  So if you do
complex queries involving multiple joins, subselects, or multiple
indexes, PostgreSQL blows MySQL and SQLite away.

Firebird support has just been added to Active Record (thanks to Ken
Kunz for the entire implementation).  So there's another open-source
DB in the fray.  Whew!

jeremy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFDe8x6AQHALep9HFYRAneeAKDAOhWZtctO8NWanvILAWcVznOKTACeJHGu
jn4PhtF16aMjvyz8N9WpvrQ=
=Jgwn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
B84d42a3a5c343f8fc6ab7d7f47fd3f5?d=identicon&s=25 robby.lists (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 05:12
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 01:02 +0100, Michael Schuerig wrote:
> AFAIR, the commercial licensing terms MySQL AB has for InnoDB are to be
> negotiated again some time next year. With Oracle being the new owner,
> the deal might be worse than before. This is speculation, of course...

Let's not forget that MySQL and a little DB company named SAP teamed up
a few years back... and have taken a bite in Oracles pie.

...Oracle hasn't forgotten.

-Robby

--
/******************************************************
* Robby Russell, Founder.Developer.Geek
* PLANET ARGON, Rails Development, Consulting & Hosting
* Portland, Oregon  | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068
* www.planetargon.com | www.robbyonrails.com
* Programming Rails   | www.programmingrails.com
*******************************************************/
B84d42a3a5c343f8fc6ab7d7f47fd3f5?d=identicon&s=25 robby.lists (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 05:15
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 16:12 -0800, CSN wrote:
> Redhat also repackages PG as their own database product.
>

They are backed by companies such as:

http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors

-Robby

--
/******************************************************
* Robby Russell, Founder.Developer.Geek
* PLANET ARGON, Rails Development, Consulting & Hosting
* Portland, Oregon  | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068
* www.planetargon.com | www.robbyonrails.com
* Programming Rails   | www.programmingrails.com
*******************************************************/
Bcfc926d36e15709d7e6c70b9791211a?d=identicon&s=25 vamlists (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 06:03
(Received via mailing list)
Robby Russell wrote:

>PostgreSQL is teh bomb...and it works GREAT with PostgreSQL. :-)
>
>
>
Lol. +1 from another satisfied PostgreSQL user. I've been developing web
apps using  PostgreSQL for almost 1.5 years, it's fast and never let me
down.


Vamsee.
B84d42a3a5c343f8fc6ab7d7f47fd3f5?d=identicon&s=25 robby.lists (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 08:04
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 08:29 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
>
> As for the Windows Unicode issue, Postgres on Windows is a very new
> system, it's quite possible there are issues they still need to work
> around. I don't use Windows, so I wouldn't know.

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/rel...

(snip)
> Allow the UTF8 encoding to work on Windows (Magnus)
>
> This is done by mapping UTF8 to the Windows-native UTF16
> implementation.




--
/******************************************************
* Robby Russell, Founder.Developer.Geek
* PLANET ARGON, Rails Development, Consulting & Hosting
* Portland, Oregon  | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068
* www.planetargon.com | www.robbyonrails.com
* Programming Rails   | www.programmingrails.com
*******************************************************/
6ea80e41f2672fbba16636baa6b55c66?d=identicon&s=25 vern01 (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 11:56
robby.lists wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 08:29 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> As for the Windows Unicode issue, Postgres on Windows is a very new
>> system, it's quite possible there are issues they still need to work
>> around. I don't use Windows, so I wouldn't know.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/rel...
>
> (snip)
>> Allow the UTF8 encoding to work on Windows (Magnus)
>>
>> This is done by mapping UTF8 to the Windows-native UTF16
>> implementation.

Everytime I think about migrating from MySQL to PostgreSQL I turn back.
Time.  MySQL I know.  PostgreSQL I don't.  And it's definitely got a
steeper curve than MySQL.
A52b0e1c5d982f2512a03c5dbfd033d6?d=identicon&s=25 rasputnik (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 12:27
(Received via mailing list)
On 17/11/05, vern01 <joe01@hotmail.com> wrote:

>  MySQL I know.  PostgreSQL I don't.  And it's definitely got a
> steeper curve than MySQL.

That's because you know mysql.


--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/
F125beb53f6f585f5d327f09664a22cd?d=identicon&s=25 grant (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 14:50
(Received via mailing list)
Phillip Hutchings wrote:

>
> On 17/11/2005, at 8:16 AM, Warren Seltzer wrote:
>
>> Is there any reason to avoid using postgresql for small web apps?
>> That is, is it's overhead so large that the lighter MySQL will work
>> substantially better for small apps on small machines?  Or are they
>> very similar in performance and configuration?
>>
Define smaller machine.  I have noticed that machines which will barely
run MySQL (my PDA) did not do so well with PostgreSQL, but on reasonable
machines (at least 64M or memory) the differences are not so much.   It
depends on version, though, with Postgres 6.5 and 7.0.3, MySQL was
faster, but ever since 7.1, it has been about the same.

For little select only queries, MySQL may be a little faster, but for
insert/updates, Postgres will appear faster when there are multiple
concurrent clients because of MVCC being better than MySQL's locking
scheme.   Also, as queries get more complex, and have many joins and sub
queries, PostgreSQL is much faster than MySQL, or even Oracle from what
I have seen, although DB2 seems to be even better with the ugly queries.

I run PostgreSQL and Rails nicely on my performance test machine.   It
is an AMD366 laptop with 160M or RAM.   If it is OK there, I don't worry
about performance tuning any more!
Cf7e5e4b5ca573eec214191fac420a2f?d=identicon&s=25 dave (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 15:02
(Received via mailing list)
On Thursday 17 Nov 2005 10:56, vern01 wrote:
> Everytime I think about migrating from MySQL to PostgreSQL I turn back.
> Time.  MySQL I know.  PostgreSQL I don't.  And it's definitely got a
> steeper curve than MySQL.

Hardly.  I recently switched to PostgreSQL after quite a few years of
MySQL
usage, and to be honest, other than having to read a few docs now and
then,
and cope with a few slightly different types (eg. no enum type), it was
extremely easy.  Add PGAdmin3 to the mix, and it's kids stuff.

Besides, if we all stuck only to the technology we knew, almost nobody
here
would have adopted Rails.  Change is good... or would you prefer to use
PHP
forever?  Sometimes you just have to learn new stuff - although I try to
do
that every day, really.

To be honest, there really isn't that much in it, when it comes to MySQL
versus PostgreSQL, especially when using Rails.  Postgres is a little
more
hardcore, MySQL is a little easier, but unless you require a specific
feature
of one or the other, or your application has extreme requirements, you
probably can't go far wrong with either for the vast majority of
situations.

If other (non-Rails) applications will be accessing your database, I
would say
go with Postgres, purely because it gives you more control over the data
integrity (although this may well be addressed in MySQL5, which I am yet
to
use).  With a Rails-only scenario, the boundary is less defined.

Personally, I love Postgres and I still like MySQL a lot too.

Just my 0.02 British Pounds Sterling.  :-)

~Dave

--

Dave Silvester
Rent-A-Monkey Website Development
Web: http://www.rentamonkey.com/
2bbd790a07af3baf216495894208c1d0?d=identicon&s=25 alang (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 15:32
(Received via mailing list)
pdsyahoo-rails@yahoo.com wrote:

> I have been using MySQL 5 with great success!  Thought about
> switching, but the MySQL license with 5 is much nicer for commercial use.


How so?  I don't know details about the MySQL 5 license but PostgreSQL
is basically a straightfoward *BSD type license.  Or are you talking
about commercial support?

--
Alan Garrison
Cronosys, LLC <http://www.cronosys.com>
Phone: 216-221-4600 ext 308
A52b0e1c5d982f2512a03c5dbfd033d6?d=identicon&s=25 rasputnik (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 16:56
(Received via mailing list)
On 17/11/05, Alan Garrison <alang@cronosys.com> wrote:
> pdsyahoo-rails@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I have been using MySQL 5 with great success!  Thought about
> > switching, but the MySQL license with 5 is much nicer for commercial use.
>
>
> How so?  I don't know details about the MySQL 5 license but PostgreSQL
> is basically a straightfoward *BSD type license.  Or are you talking
> about commercial support?

I read that as 'much nicer (than mysql 4).....'


--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/
2bbd790a07af3baf216495894208c1d0?d=identicon&s=25 alang (Guest)
on 2005-11-17 18:03
(Received via mailing list)
Dick Davies wrote:

>>>
>>How so?  I don't know details about the MySQL 5 license but PostgreSQL
>>is basically a straightfoward *BSD type license.  Or are you talking
>>about commercial support?
>>
>>
>
>I read that as 'much nicer (than mysql 4).....'
>
>
>


Okay, just I wasn't sure if had some objection to PostgreSQL's licensing
for commercial use (which the license perfectly allows for).



--
Alan Garrison
Cronosys, LLC <http://www.cronosys.com>
Phone: 216-221-4600 ext 308
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.