archives again

[David Bandel]

On 11/19/05, Collins Richey <crichey at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/18/05, Net Llama! <netllama at linux-sxs.org> wrote:
> > On 11/18/2005 08:40 PM, Collins Richey wrote:
> > > I know how to access the list archives, but ... is there a searchable
> > > format of the archives or some sort of a tool I can use to do this?
> > > Sounds like a pretty round wheel, but I haven't a clue.
> >
> > http://www.linux-sxs.org/site_search.html
> >
> > >
> > > What brought this up was one of those PostgreSQL vs MySQL questions on
> > > my local list. The discussion started out from this premise: "Since
> > > PostgreSQL seems not to be as actively maintained on most distros as
> > > MySQ, and since MySQL now has Triggers and Stored Procedures and
> >
> > Where did you come up with this idea?  I'm not aware of any modern,
> > complete distro that isn't 'actively' maintaining postgresql if they're
> > shipping it to begin with.
> >
>
> I didn't come up with this idea; I'm merely the relay. Surprisingly
> enough, the premise cited above came from an individual who has a
> great deal of knowledge and usually answers the thornier questions on

doesn't mean he knows anything about SQL.

> the list. This came up in an interchange where we are attempting to
> schedule some discussion sessions/study groups outside the regualar
> monthly Linux meeting. Among the many topics proposed was PHP and
> MySQL (the basis for the lug website), and I suggested that we study
> Postgres as well. Back came the attitude - who needs Postgres when you
> have MySQL ...

Who need Linux when you have M$ ...

PHP and MySQL is a recipe for disaster.  PHP has had more security
problems than most any other software package.  Does PHP have:

a way to "taint" input (similar to Perl's -T)?  If so, it appear no
one know about it.  Way too many Perl programmers don't use -T for web
(or CLI or GUI) apps when they should, but at least it's there.

and MySQL is the database answer to M$.

>
> The one observation I have that makes this gentleman's comment
> slightly believable came up with CentOS4/RHEL4 where they shipped with
> a default of selinux enabled but Postgres would not start with the
> default setting. There soon followed a fix/workaround, but it makes me
> think that Red Hat didn't care quite as much about testing Postgres as
> they do about other products. That's a one off.situation.

So since when is RH the standard?  I've considered RH to be the Linux
answer to M$. Unstable bleeding edge nonsense (perhaps not recently
with the spinoff of Fedora), but they got the nickname RedCrap for a
reason.

>
> More to the point, the individual in question is probably
> distorting/confusing the fact that there is a lot more list traffic,
> general interest, etc. about MySQL than Postgres, even though those
> who really understand database technology (certainly not I) consider
> MySQL to be more of a toy. Postgres had all of the features that MySQL
> is now touting when MySQL was still wearing a training bra.

A lot more folks use M$ than Linux on the desktop.  What does that
tell you?  Marketing hype counts.  And MySQL has been a default
install on most distros where as Postgres hasn't.

Doesn't help that big blog and search sites use MySQL.  But who cares
if you get data corruption on a blog containing a bunch of idiots
non-sensical comments?  Or if you're running a farm of 1000 MySL
servers that monitor and rebuild each other if one gets
corrupted/outdated data?

>
> Given what little I understand about both products, I've never been
> able to figure out why MySQL became so insanely propular. I just read
> an article on LinuxToday where a company called EnterpriseDB has
> developed an interface (commercial not FOSS) that allows Postgres to
> run pretty much unadulterated Oracle code, and they're certainly not
> doing that for MySQL..

Because Postgres supports most of the same feature as Oracle,
Informix, Sybase, etc. MySQL is pure speed (only).  Most of these SQL
neophites also only use one table vice many.  But when you use many
tables (as I have, one app has over 50 tables), in MySQL you'd need 3
queries (a union of 2 natural joins) to perform a single left outer
join query.  No matter how fast MySQL is, unless the Postgres database
is huge, without indexes, and never analyzed (to give hints to the
optimizer) it will be twice as fast as MySQL when an outer join
workaround is required.

Ask if MySQL requires a vacuum.  Vacuum eliminates deleted rows from
the db.  These rows are deleted when an updated row replaces it. 
MySQL used to just rewrite the row (aagh, what a _terrible_ idea! 
Imagine an OS crash in the middle of a row rewrite).  _All_ real SQL
dbs use row substitution to switch changes in.  And transactions are
vital, especially when updating hundreds of thousands of rows or even
when updating just a few rows if multiple users might be updating the
same rows at the same time (which brings up row vs table locking
issues).

Granted, it's been a long time since I followed MySQL development, but
I dropped it years ago for the same reasons I dropped M$. 
Improvements be damned, I don't have time to learn hundreds of new
programs a year.  So I'll be sticking to PostgreSQL and Linux, thanx.

>
> This is now quite <OT> to the original content of the post: how to
> search the archives.

True, but if the gentlemen's arguments had merit, this would be a
Windoze-lusers list. ;-)

Ciao,

David A. Bandel
--
Focus on the dream, not the competition.
            - Nemesis Air Racing Team motto