Message-ID: <47BF794C.1030004@ultimeth.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:39:24 -0800
From: "Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)" <postgresql@ultimeth.com>
Organization: UltiMeth Systems
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SQL standards in Mysql
References: <47BF1B32.2050800@kensystem.com>	
	<20080222195720.GL9392@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<dcc563d10802221613s79f9967foa1c0540db9c5b7af@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10802221613s79f9967foa1c0540db9c5b7af@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 2008-02-22 16:13, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> There's example after example of things in the mysql bug database that should make anyone considering it as a database engine cringe and walk away shaking their head.
I don't understand why anyone wanting a real SQL DB would pick MySQL.

Four years ago I knew nothing about SQL (I still pronounce it S-Q-L), 
but wanted to set up a real DB with the maximum flexibility.  So, I:

1. Asked a friend in the DB world (primarily Oracle) what he 
recommended, and he said "MySQL".
2. I then bought a book on SQL ("Using SQL", by Rafe Colburn, ISBN 
0-7897-1974-6, © 2000 Que Publishing), which mentions every common SQL 
DB  __except__  PostgreSQL.

So, I went with PostgreSQL.  Why?  From the book, it was clear that 
MySQL lacked so many features of a decent SQL DB.  In particular (at the 
time) VIEWs and sub-selects.  I didn't know much about VIEWs and 
sub-selects, but it appeared to me that they were pretty 
important/powerful features that any SQL DB should have.  PostgreSQL was 
the only one left standing (at least on my budget).  (I ran it on a 
Pentium 233 for a year before I upgraded the hardware.)

As of now, MySQL has VIEWs and sub-selects, but there appear to be a 
number of other little "gotchas" that lurk (which the original poster of 
this and the related threads has so amply illustrated).  One of the 
advantage of standards-compliant software is that, while you may be 
surprised by some feature, that feature has been examined by a number of 
people and (typically) found to be the best way of being consistent in a 
broader view, rather than a feature that has been written (or not) for 
the sake of expediency in a particular implementation.  Further, many 
standards are features that, while sometimes not met by existing 
implementations, are at least a goal of consistency and functionality 
that is aspired to (and usually planned for in future releases).

The sad fact is that we live in a world of expediency (not to mention a 
bit of hype).  Many people don't even do the elementary research that I 
did before glibly picking a DB for their server, in their rush to be the 
next dot-com (or other) success.  As a result, PostgreSQL is not 
supported by some software packages.  For example, I think phpBB is the 
only major message board software that supports PostgreSQL (see 
http://www.phpbb.com/about/features/compare.php ), and in fact has for 
some time.  Of course, they have a DB abstraction layer (wow, what an 
concept!), which allows them to easily support a number of DBs.  Of 
course, what does that tell you about the level of design and 
professionalism of phpBB versus the others?  Note that I have no 
connection with the phpBB project, and in fact find many of the 
developers arrogant.  I'm just saying that any software that doesn't 
support a number of DBs probably wasn't designed and/or implemented 
properly.

Hopefully, some event in the near future will tip the scales in the 
public perception of SQL DBs, and PostgreSQL will get better respect.

-- Dean

-- 
Mail to my list address MUST be sent via the mailing list.
All other mail to my list address will bounce.