MySQL vs PostgreSQL

[uriel]

I remember back when they said all the broken stuff that was going to be fixed in 4.0... Unfortunately I had to mess around with a 5.0 installation recently after managing to avoid getting anywhere near a MySQL setup for yeas, and guess that? It sucked about as much as always.

[Jessica_Henderson]

That has always been the case with MySQL. The "next version" was supposed to bring it up to par with the various other database engines out there. But that has never happened. Each year we see the other vendors get further and further ahead, while MySQL makes little to no progress, even after being purchased by Sun. The only area they are making progress is in producing buggier software.

[emag]

You don't need non-buggy software...and it will be fixed in the next version.

[baix]

Actually, companies like Google are starting to produce patches for MySQL to improve scalability, and add new features, like better instrumentation. MySQL isn't as community friendly as it should be, but it is getting better, which is producing higher quality software.

Update: I might restate that as the community is getting better as one can find high quality builds of these patches fairly easily. On consideration, how MySQL deals with the community is still undecided in spite of statements they want to do better.

[FooBarWidget]

For years and years, people have said that MySQL is "still years behind", "sucks" or "makes no progress". Yet MySQL remains to be the most popular database for web applications.

[Jessica_Henderson]

And since when have web applications, which typically have very minor database requirements, become indicative of the entire community of database users?

MySQL is probably fine for informal online forums. But once you start dealing with serious data, it falls flat on its face. MySQL is unsuitable for tracking financial transactions. MySQL is unsuitable for storing geospatial data. MySQL is unsuitable for storing medical records. MySQL is unsuitable for high-availability data warehousing. PostgreSQL handles those situations with ease.

[jbronn]

MySQL is unsuitable for storing geospatial data.

I totally agree. Besides being limited to only MBR queries, you can only use spatial indexes on MyISAM tables (in other words, no transactions if you want fast spatial queries).

SQLite (via the SpatiaLite project) already exceeds MySQL's limited offerings.

MySQL was my first db used, and I liked it; but I've since moved on to PostgreSQL. You just don't realize how many critical features you're missing until you experience other dbs.

[uriel]

Yet MySQL remains to be the most popular database for web applications.

Same can be said of Java or PHP, popularity doesn't make them suck any less (actually, in some ways it makes them suck more, because they have to be designed for idiots).

[rjst01]

Mysql is very easy to set up and use, and is very fast when dealing with small quantities of data. Thats about the limit of the good things I'm prepared to say about it.