If you look through the archives, and in fact the internet, you'll find countless "why is postgres better than mysql" essays. You'll even find a few clueless "why mysql is better than everything" essays, which can be safely ignored.
For me, the bottom line is that postgres was developed from the beginning to be an acid-compliant world-class rdbms. Mysql, on the other hand, was designed originally as a simple data store that could be queried with a subset of sql. Basically, if postgres is unix, mysql is ms-dos. Version 1. Because of its popularity, people have duct-taped reasonable functionality onto the side of mysql, including transactional capabilities, procedural languages, etc. The problem is that there is no reason to bother doing this to mysql when postgres had those capabilities all along. And, yes, I know that people are constantly improving mysql. But it'll never catch postgres because, not surprisingly, people didn't quit developing it 10 years ago. Watching mysql is like watching microsoft promise that the next version of internet explorer is going to really be good, as if catching up to firefox, safari, chrome, konqueror, etc. is even possible for them. Postgres is no more difficult to install, learn, or use than mysql. In terms of capability, there is no comparison. Critch details some of the differences, but he's just scratching the surface. I'm not being specific simply because I don't know where to begin. Others have done a better job of it, anyway, so google it and see. Michael -- Michael Darrin Chaney, Sr. [email protected] http://www.michaelchaney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NLUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en.
