X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A83329D58 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:17:31 +0100 (BST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05537-09 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:17:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pc7.berlin.powerweb.de (pc7.berlin.powerweb.de [62.67.228.13]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F794329CAE for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:17:19 +0100 (BST) Received: from spock (p50840984.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.132.9.132]) by pc7.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA02115 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:17:15 +0200 Message-ID: <008e01c49a6e$670d2010$6602a8c0@spock> From: "Harald Lau (Sector-X)" To: References: <20040912042442.49915.qmail@web41508.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres -- merge tables Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:20:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200409/121 X-Sequence-Number: 8249 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > From: "Mischa Sandberg" >=20 > > If your company is currently happy with MySQL, there probably are > > other (nontechnical) reasons to stick with it. I'm impressed that > > you'd consider reconsidering PG. >=20 > I'd like to second Mischa on that issue. Though both of you are right from my point of view, I don't think it's very useful to discuss this item here. Having once migrated a MySQL-DB to PG I can confirm, that in fact chances are good you will be unhappy if you adopt the MySQL data-model and the SQL 1:1. As well as PG has to be much more configured and optimized than MySQL. As well as the client-application is supposed to be modified to a certain extend, particularly if you want to take over some -or some more- business-logic from client to database. But, from what Mark stated so far I'm sure he is not going to migrate his app just for fun, resp. without having considered this. > NEVER reimplement an existing system unless the project includes > substantial functional imporovement. or monetary issues I know one big database that was migrated from Oracle to PG and another from SQLServer to PG because of licence-costs. Definitely there are some more. That applies to MySQL, too; licence policy is somewhat obscure to me, but under certain circumstances you have to pay regards Harald -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.3 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBQUb+O8JpD/drhCuMEQJCZACgqdJsrWjOwdP779PFaFMjxdgvqkwAoIPc jPONy6urLRLf3vylVjVlEyci =3D/1Ka -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----