

PostgreSQL 9.0 Final Release Available Now - mindaugas
http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.1235

======
siglesias
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.

~~~
jacobian
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 meant that speed and ease of use sometimes suffered.

Today, though, both databases have mostly caught up -- MySQL has implemented
most of the big ticket features that PostgreSQL had for years, and PostgreSQL
(especially with the 9.0 release) has gotten far easier to use and tune, and
is now as fast (or faster) than MySQL on most workloads.

The heritage still shows, at times: MySQL, even in "strict" mode, still
suffers from annoying bugs and mis-interpretations of SQL features. PostgreSQL
is still slow out of the box, often needing to be carefully tuned for the best
performance.

Disclaimer: major PostgreSQL user and fan here. I've tried to give as
objective an answer as I can.

~~~
gaius
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 you need a single-user database there's SQLite and if you need a free
serious RDBMS there's Postgres. There's really no ecological niche for MySQL.
It only hangs on because sites like Slashdot use it (and if you have thousands
of reads for every write, and do only very simple queries, it is adequate).

~~~
jacobian
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.

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

Justin Bieber.

~~~
kijinbear
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.

~~~
rimantas
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.

------
avar
Yesterday's thread discussing 9.0:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1706030>

------
mindaugas
Full release notes <http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/release-9-0>

------
ghotli
Has anyone been using PostGIS with the RCs? Is it stable and ready for
production?

~~~
biog
I use PostGIS with 9.0RC without any problems.

------
epi0Bauqu
Why use hot-standby over streaming replication or visa-versa?

~~~
gxti
It's a free upgrade from warm standby, whereas SR requires a little more
configuration. A good SR cluster also requires that log archiving (warm/hot
standby) be set up in case the stream gets behind, otherwise you're at the
mercy of whatever happens to be in the master's xlog.

