7 ms·

Is there a good reason to use MySQL when you have the choice between it and Postgres? When we had the MySQL vs Postgres discussion in college, it seemed like t

by dcolgan 13y ago

Is there a good reason to use MySQL when you have the choice between it and Postgres? When we had the MySQL vs Postgres discussion in college, it seemed like the only reason to use MySQL we could come up with was that it had the larger user base.

arjn 13y ago
We use both in our production and staging environment. I've been using both for the last 3 years (5 years for MySql). My opinion at this time is that in 80% of cases MySQL is easier to setup, use and manage.
- saosebastiao 13y ago
  Only if 80% of the use cases are extremely simple use cases, with no need for multiple indexes per table, complex queries, common table expressions, user defined datatypes, window functions, asynchronous queries, or a strict stance on undefined behaviors, etc. The problem I see is that simple use cases gradually become slightly-less-simple use cases. And the pain of switching is 1000x the pain of taking a few extra steps up front and using a better database.
  - rimantas 13y ago
    I doubt all the stuff you listed is used even in 1% of cases, except multiple indexes and strict stance. And MySQL supports both.
    - saosebastiao 13y ago
      All the stuff, sure. But I have yet to find a scenario that doesn't involve at least one of them.
andyana 13y ago
I've been using both for 10 years; postgres for in house apps, my SQL when a third party app needs it, and I find postgres much easier to manage.
agildehaus 13y ago
The only one I can come up with is that Sequel Pro supports MySQL and not PostgreSQL. Truly, the one item I miss the most from making the switch.
spudlyo 13y ago
Traditionally MySQL has been ahead of Postgres in terms of replication, but Postgres has made great strides in that department recently. Having said that, Postgres still doesn't support master-master or ring topologies, replication filtering, and is binary only (which is probably a good thing).
- fdr 13y ago
  Naah, I wouldn't go so far to say it's a good thing that it's missing, but it's hellaciously hard to implement well. I think the sentiment is rendered well in this mail, which took place after extensive review and hacking. In it, Robert Haas (a committer) writes to Andres Freund (the principal author, I believe): Before getting bogged down in technical commentary, let me say this very clearly: I am enormously grateful for your work on this project. Logical replication based on WAL decoding is a feature of enormous value that PostgreSQL has needed for a long time, and your work has made that look like an achievable goal. Furthermore, it seems to me that you have pursued the community process with all the vigor and sincerity for which anyone could ask. Serious design concerns were raised early in the process and you made radical changes to the design which I believe have improved it tremendously, and you've continued to display an outstanding attitude at every phase of this process about which I can't say enough good things. There is no question in my mind that this work is going to be the beginning of a process that revolutionizes the way people think about replication and PostgreSQL, and you deserve our sincere thanks for that. Now, the bad news is, I don't think it's very reasonable to try to commit this to 9.3. I think it is just too much stuff too late in the cycle. I've reviewed some of the patches from time to time but there is a lot more stuff and it's big and complicated and it's not really clear that we have the interface quite right yet, even though I think it's also clear that we are a lot of closer than we were. I don't want to be fixing that during beta, much less after release. http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoYhkMpkB8JZYhVei--h-onT-kT-Ko8bHvrrBUsewi_u-Q@mail.gmail.com http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoYhkMpkB8JZYhVei-... The implications for PostgreSQL version upgrade alone are enormous. MySQL has been ahead here, even though some if it was at the cost of some sanity, and by lack of sanity I mean "statement based replication". The first semi-sane logical replication was the 2008 release that included row-based-replication.
sidmitra 13y ago
I prefer Postgres wherever i can, i usually go with MySQL(or RDS) whenever i'm on AWS. Since the added features of multi-AZ, and scalability take a lot of upfront effort/time investment away.

by dcolgan 13y ago

arjn 13y ago

We use both in our production and staging environment. I've been using both for the last 3 years (5 years for MySql). My opinion at this time is that in 80% of cases MySQL is easier to setup, use and manage.

saosebastiao 13y ago
Only if 80% of the use cases are extremely simple use cases, with no need for multiple indexes per table, complex queries, common table expressions, user defined datatypes, window functions, asynchronous queries, or a strict stance on undefined behaviors, etc. The problem I see is that simple use cases gradually become slightly-less-simple use cases. And the pain of switching is 1000x the pain of taking a few extra steps up front and using a better database.
- rimantas 13y ago
  I doubt all the stuff you listed is used even in 1% of cases, except multiple indexes and strict stance. And MySQL supports both.
  - saosebastiao 13y ago
    All the stuff, sure. But I have yet to find a scenario that doesn't involve at least one of them.

andyana 13y ago

I've been using both for 10 years; postgres for in house apps, my SQL when a third party app needs it, and I find postgres much easier to manage.

agildehaus 13y ago

The only one I can come up with is that Sequel Pro supports MySQL and not PostgreSQL. Truly, the one item I miss the most from making the switch.

spudlyo 13y ago

Traditionally MySQL has been ahead of Postgres in terms of replication, but Postgres has made great strides in that department recently. Having said that, Postgres still doesn't support master-master or ring topologies, replication filtering, and is binary only (which is probably a good thing).

fdr 13y ago
Naah, I wouldn't go so far to say it's a good thing that it's missing, but it's hellaciously hard to implement well. I think the sentiment is rendered well in this mail, which took place after extensive review and hacking. In it, Robert Haas (a committer) writes to Andres Freund (the principal author, I believe): Before getting bogged down in technical commentary, let me say this very clearly: I am enormously grateful for your work on this project. Logical replication based on WAL decoding is a feature of enormous value that PostgreSQL has needed for a long time, and your work has made that look like an achievable goal. Furthermore, it seems to me that you have pursued the community process with all the vigor and sincerity for which anyone could ask. Serious design concerns were raised early in the process and you made radical changes to the design which I believe have improved it tremendously, and you've continued to display an outstanding attitude at every phase of this process about which I can't say enough good things. There is no question in my mind that this work is going to be the beginning of a process that revolutionizes the way people think about replication and PostgreSQL, and you deserve our sincere thanks for that. Now, the bad news is, I don't think it's very reasonable to try to commit this to 9.3. I think it is just too much stuff too late in the cycle. I've reviewed some of the patches from time to time but there is a lot more stuff and it's big and complicated and it's not really clear that we have the interface quite right yet, even though I think it's also clear that we are a lot of closer than we were. I don't want to be fixing that during beta, much less after release. http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoYhkMpkB8JZYhVei--h-onT-kT-Ko8bHvrrBUsewi_u-Q@mail.gmail.com http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoYhkMpkB8JZYhVei-... The implications for PostgreSQL version upgrade alone are enormous. MySQL has been ahead here, even though some if it was at the cost of some sanity, and by lack of sanity I mean "statement based replication". The first semi-sane logical replication was the 2008 release that included row-based-replication.

sidmitra 13y ago

I prefer Postgres wherever i can, i usually go with MySQL(or RDS) whenever i'm on AWS. Since the added features of multi-AZ, and scalability take a lot of upfront effort/time investment away.