Message-ID: <3E9BF242.8030109@mohawksoft.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:51:30 -0400
From: mlw <pgsql@mohawksoft.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Cc: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>, Brent Verner <brent@rcfile.org>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Are we losing momentum?
References: <200304142237.h3EMbvv13720@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<2703.1050364467@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20030415015217.GA96608@rcfile.org>
	<Pine.NEB.4.51.0304151132210.385@angelic-vtfw.cvpn.cynic.net>
	<053501c302f9$b6da54e0$6500a8c0@fhp.internal>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

>>That's a pretty reasonable thought. I work for a shop that sells
>>Postgres support, and even we install MySQL for the Q&D ticket tracking
>>system we recommend because we can't justify the cost to port it to
>>postgres. If the postgres support were there, we would surely be using it.
>>
>>How to fix such a situation, I'm not sure. "MySQL Compatability Mode,"
>>anyone? :-)
>>    
>>
>
>The real problem is PHP.  PHP is just the cruftiest language ever invented (trust me, I use it every day).  The PHP people are totally dedicated to MySQL, to the exclusion of all rational thought (eg. When I asked Rasmas at a conference about race conditions in his replicated setup, he replied "it's never going to happen - MySQL's replication is just too fast...).
>
>  
>
Hey! don't go knocking PHP, it is probably one of the most flexible and 
easy to use systems around. I have done several fairly large projects 
with PHP and while it is an "ugly" environment, it performs well enough, 
has a very usable extension interface, it is quick and easy to even 
large projects done.

As for MySQL, there are two things that PostgreSQL does not do, and 
probably can not do to support MySQL:

(1) REPLACE INTO (I think that's the name) which does either an insert 
or update into a table depending on the existence of a row. I was told 
that this was impossible.

(2) MySQL returns a value on  insert which is usually usable, for instance,
insert into mytable (x,y,z) values(1,2,3);
select rowid from mytable where x=1 and y=2 and z=3;

I have had many discussions with MySQL people, and one common thread 
exists. People who use MySQL do not usually understand databases all 
that well. Arguments about *why* it is a horrible database and barely 
SQL at all, fall on deaf ears. They don't understand PostgreSQL, they 
complain that it is "too big." They complain that it is "too much," 
MySQL is all they need. They complain that it is "too hard" to use.

All of these things are largely imagined. PostgreSQL is not much bigger 
than MySQL, in fact, the difference is negligible with regards to 
average system capability these days. It isn't any more difficult to 
use, its just a little different. They, however, feel safe with MySQL. 
MySQL is the Microsoft of databases, everyone uses it because everyone 
uses it, not because it is better or even adequate.

We need to take projects like Bugzilla (Did RH ever release the PG 
version or am I way out of date?) and port them to PostgreSQL. We need 
to write free articles for Linux and IT magazines about how to take a 
MySQL project over to PostgreSQL easily, why PostgreSQL is much better 
than MySQL, lastly we have to play the MySQL benchmark game .. we need 
to create a Benchmark program that clearly shows how PostgreSQL compares 
to MySQL.