This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
To: redhat-list@listman.redhat.com
From: "Juan Nin" <juaid@juanin.com>
Subject: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:07:44 -0300
Hi,
I'm about to make a kind of yahoogroups in PHP. It's for a University, so it
will be used a lot.
I'm considering using either MySQL or PostgreSQL...
Which one would you recommend for this project?
I've always heared that PostgreSQL is better for big databases with lots of
records, where data integrity, etc is critical, and that MySQL is better for
light web applications, and smaller databases where quickness is needed...
but I've heared that the new MySQL 4.x branch changes this a bit, and that
from MySQL 4.1 there are nested queries support, etc
any recommendations?
Thanks in advance,
===
To: redhat-list@listman.redhat.com
From: "David Busby" <busby@pnts.com>
Subject: Re: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:10:31 -0800
I've always loved PostgreSQL I use it for large and small projects, with
some real nasty/ugly nested queries. It still performs great even under
some heavy load. Make sure you get a real (real) fast HDD (LVD SCSI 15K
RPM), the slower the drive the slower the database in my experience.
===
To: redhat-list@listman.redhat.com
From: "Juan Nin" <juaid@juanin.com>
Subject: Re: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:19:53 -0300
From: "David Busby" <busby@pnts.com>
> I've always loved PostgreSQL I use it for large and small projects, with
> some real nasty/ugly nested queries. It still performs great even under
> some heavy load. Make sure you get a real (real) fast HDD (LVD SCSI 15K
> RPM), the slower the drive the slower the database in my experience.
thanks David
and what about upgrading?
I've heared that upgrading is more painfull with PostgreSQL, since you have
to dump the databases and restore them again after the upgrade
is that true, or are there any new methods of upgrading?
===
To: redhat-list@listman.redhat.com
From: "Stefan Neufeind" <stefan@neufeind.net>
Subject: Re: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:25:34 +0100
Personally speaking I must tell you that I like MySQL very much
because of its compactness (in the 3.x-releases). But at some points
you're right, it wasn't the best database-solution to choose because
of it's features - but I was able to "emulate" a lot through php-
scripts.
The 4.x-branch changes this, as you already stated. But I wouldn't
use 4.x in a "rough" production-environment at the moment. If you use
it for your university that's okay I believe - but you can't use it
in a REALLY critical environement yet.
PostgreSQL has a lot of the things MySQL-users always wanted. But
MySQL is catching up. Therefor I would say: Choose whatever you like.
As far as I know with both correctly configured and administrated
(adding indexes etc.) you can use bpoth even for heavy-loaded sites.
It's a question of peronal likes / dislikes
Give MySQL 4.x a try - it's worth it. But PostgreSQL on the other
hand already has all the features that are now arriving in the MySQL
4.x-releases.
No easy questions ... make up your own mind about it. I don't want to
influence you ... and be asured: Both solutions are quite good and
fast!
===
To: redhat-list@listman.redhat.com
From: "nate" <redhat@aphroland.org>
Subject: Re: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:28:28 -0800 (PST)
Juan Nin said:
> but I've heared that the new MySQL 4.x branch changes this a bit, and that
> from MySQL 4.1 there are nested queries support, etc
I most certainly would reccomend AGAINST using mysql 4.x unless your
app has a long development time to give mysql 4.x time to stabilize(I
would not use it for probably at least a year). It still isn't "final"
according to mysql.com. And even after it is I would not deploy it
immediately. Though I am very cautious as to what I deploy on my network,
e.g. I only started re-evaluating the 2.4.x kernel for deployment 3 months
ago.
The type app you describe seems like a common app for mysql.
never used yahoo groups myself but it sounds like some sort of
discussion system. I'd reccomend looking at what others are using for
such a system, perhaps even contact authors/mailing lists of projects
directly for their experiences.
a site that seems to list quite a few:
http://www.hotscripts.com/PHP/Scripts_and_Programs/Discussion_Boards/
that said I haven't personally used postgres for anything yet, all of
my apps seem to tie well into mysql, all are very low utilization,
and I've never had any problems. The developers at the company I last
worked at used postgres for license reasons and I heard them curse about
it on more then one occasion, but I think much of the complaints was
running postgres on 'odd' platforms like HPUX 10.x and AIX 4.2 and real
early versions of solaris ..(e.g 2.5), more then the app itself. oddly
enough all internal development(stuff that wasn't sold to customers)
was done on mysql(mostly website related stuff).
nate
===
To: redhat-list@listman.redhat.com
From: "Stefan Neufeind" <stefan@neufeind.net>
Subject: Re: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:39:22 +0100
On 26 Feb 2003 at 11:28, nate wrote:
> Juan Nin said:
>
> > but I've heared that the new MySQL 4.x branch changes this a bit,
> > and that from MySQL 4.1 there are nested queries support, etc
>
> I most certainly would reccomend AGAINST using mysql 4.x unless your
> app has a long development time to give mysql 4.x time to stabilize(I
> would not use it for probably at least a year). It still isn't "final"
> according to mysql.com. And even after it is I would not deploy it
> immediately. Though I am very cautious as to what I deploy on my
> network, e.g. I only started re-evaluating the 2.4.x kernel for
> deployment 3 months ago.
>
> The type app you describe seems like a common app for mysql.
Well yes and know to the use / not use MySQL-question. I wouldn't
rate the university-use "mission critical". It runs good, that's what
I hear from many people. And it's stablizing more and more. Got a
bugfix-newsletter yesterday which only included some "minor" tweaks
but no real holes. Why not give it a try in this surrounding? I
believe its a good way to help evaluation of MySQL 4.x in a non-
mission-critical-environement and I would vote for that solution.
That's only my personal oppion for sure.
===
To: redhat-list@listman.redhat.com
From: Shannon Neumann <shannon@neumannweb.net>
Subject: Re: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:40:14 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format...
--------------030302000900000200030305
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
I have to preface this by saying that I haven't personally used Postgres
for anything...
I use MySQL for database-driven websites and a db-driven chat system
that I am toying with. While the sites I have running are low-volume, I
would note that I ran ApacheBench against one of them to see how well
the system would hold up under load. I was surprised to find that when
getting hammered with thousands of requests per minute, it was Apache
that had problems. I was running top on a terminal session while the
benchmark tool was running, and MySQL stayed at under 2% of the total,
Apache was racking the processor utilization up tp 90+%.
Just my .02.
===
To: redhat-list@listman.redhat.com
From: "Juan Nin" <juaid@juanin.com>
Subject: Re: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:40:54 -0300
> I most certainly would reccomend AGAINST using mysql 4.x unless your
> app has a long development time to give mysql 4.x time to stabilize(I
> would not use it for probably at least a year). It still isn't "final"
> according to mysql.com. And even after it is I would not deploy it
> immediately. Though I am very cautious as to what I deploy on my network,
> e.g. I only started re-evaluating the 2.4.x kernel for deployment 3 months
> ago.
Actually the project will have to be finished by end of year, or first
months of 2004
It's probably not a very good idea to consider using MySQL 4.x yet..
> The type app you describe seems like a common app for mysql.
> never used yahoo groups myself but it sounds like some sort of
> discussion system.
yes, it's something like that, it like a mailing-list, with the capabilities
of posting messages via a web page, seeing the messages via web, subscribed
members, and others...
>I'd reccomend looking at what others are using for
> such a system, perhaps even contact authors/mailing lists of projects
> directly for their experiences.
>
> a site that seems to list quite a few:
> http://www.hotscripts.com/PHP/Scripts_and_Programs/Discussion_Boards/
good idea!!!
thanks!!!
===
To: redhat-list@listman.redhat.com
From: "David Busby" <busby@pnts.com>
Subject: Re: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:48:36 -0800
Juan,
After performing the Dump/Import for the upgrade once it's cake. There
are two utilities that you can use
pg_dump
to dump data
psql < [file]
to restore
so before I upgrade I simply
pg_dump [options] [dbname]
to my archive/backup file
then after the upgrade I say
psql [options] < [archive.file]
and then go smoke (smoking is a bad habit) when I come back all my data is
there.
There are other options as well see the linked document about backup and
restore...it's really not that scary ;)
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/view.php?version=7.3&idoc=0&file=backup.html
===
To: redhat-list@listman.redhat.com
From: "Christian Brink" <cb@onsitetech.com>
Subject: RE: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:48:40 -0800
> I've heared that upgrading is more painfull with PostgreSQL,
> since you have
> to dump the databases and restore them again after the upgrade
Yes it's true you need to dump the databases and restore them, but I
disagree that it's painful.
It's fairly quick and easy with `pg_dumpall`. In fact you could stick the
whole upgrade (copy config, dump db's, upgrade, restore config, startup, and
restore db's) on one line if you wanted to.
But the advantages of PostgreSQL(complete and time tested ACID
transactions,sub selects,...) over MySQL make concerns like that IMO a
non-issue.
Christian
===
To: redhat-list@listman.redhat.com
From: "Juan Nin" <juaid@juanin.com>
Subject: Re: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:48:51 -0300
From: "Stefan Neufeind" <stefan@neufeind.net>
> Well yes and know to the use / not use MySQL-question. I wouldn't
> rate the university-use "mission critical". It runs good, that's what
> I hear from many people. And it's stablizing more and more. Got a
> bugfix-newsletter yesterday which only included some "minor" tweaks
> but no real holes. Why not give it a try in this surrounding? I
> believe its a good way to help evaluation of MySQL 4.x in a non-
> mission-critical-environement and I would vote for that solution.
> That's only my personal oppion for sure.
yes, you are right in that..
and replication and backup procedures can be used just in case..
(and should be used anyway on stable release...)
not a bad idea..
thanks again
===
To: redhat-list@listman.redhat.com
From: "Juan Nin" <juaid@juanin.com>
Subject: Re: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:58:39 -0300
From: "David Busby" <busby@pnts.com>
> Juan,
> After performing the Dump/Import for the upgrade once it's cake.
There
> are two utilities that you can use
> pg_dump
> to dump data
> psql < [file]
> to restore
> so before I upgrade I simply
> pg_dump [options] [dbname]
> to my archive/backup file
> then after the upgrade I say
> psql [options] < [archive.file]
> and then go smoke (smoking is a bad habit) when I come back all my data is
> there.
hahah, yes, bad habit!!! :oP
yes actually it's similar as dumping with MySQL, and it doesn't seem any
pain...
the comment was more founded on what I had heared...
===
To: redhat-list@listman.redhat.com
From: "Anthony E. Greene" <agreene@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:52:53 -0500
Juan Nin wrote:
> I've heared that upgrading is more painfull with PostgreSQL, since you have
> to dump the databases and restore them again after the upgrade
Dump and rebuild is an easy and reliable way to preserve your data through
db engine updates. Are you saying that if the binary formats were
compatible, you'd just run the upgrade without backing up your data?
With PostgreSQL, my normal backups are done by dumping the data into
gzipped SQL files. Including the db structure in the dump does not add
significant processing overhead or storage requirements.
So really, the difference is between
"tar -czvf db_backup.tar.gz /data/dir"
or
"pg_dumpall | gzip - > db_backup.gz"
===
To: redhat-list@listman.redhat.com
From: Martin Marques <martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar>
Subject: Re: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:51:01 -0300
On Mi