Actually I was hoping you would finally come up with just one single argument to support your earlier claim that MySQL "...is a poor database from the standpoint of support of relational database theory." It would be fab too if you could give just one example of a user that prefers Postgres for all that serious database work they need to do. You might find it hard to believe, but I really am interested in your reasons for saying all these things.
My remark ("Well, that is quite possible. I wouldn't know that.") you are so eagerly lifting out of context was actually a nice way of letting you know that I think you made your remark ("And MYSQL's level of capability is far less than Postgres - another known fact.") just based on hearsay, esp. because you don't name even one such capability.
The attempts you have made so far to give your views some credibility, have only led to catchy phrases like "relational theory" but these remain utterly void since you take no effort to show that *you* actually know what you're talking about. Sure I can google - I'm interested in what *you* have to say about it.
Cutting this thread short by taking my comments out of context and totally ignoring sound critique is quite childish, and your eagerness in doing so makes me think you just want the easy way out. If you want the easy way out, the do so gracefully and just admit that your bashing is just a social thing, and not based on any technical experience.
"The facts remain that MySQL is used more for Web page serving than anything else."
Now that is indeed a fact as well as common knowledge. Actually it's probably two facts: 1) MySQL is used more often to serve web pages than to back other kinds of applications. 2) There is no other rdbms that is used so widely to serve web pages.
Having read your earlier statements:
"MySQL was a poorly designed DBMS intended to be fast at the application of serving up Web pages for a Web site. It is not and never was designed to be a general purpose database for enterprise class production database and data warehousing applications."
I believe you intended to express the first interpretation. Apparently, you are trying to prove again that MySQL is only suitable for serving web pages, and that that is one of the reasons why it is used so often for that purpose. Well, if the amount of usage is a really measure for suitability, where does that leave Postgres then?
"And the fact that large companies use it - perhaps even successfully -..."
Tsk, tsk "...perhaps...". They *are* using it successfully, and they are (in part) large companies *because* they use MySQL.
"...does not change the fact that it is a poor database from the standpoint of support of relational database theory."
I think you would have a hard time explaining exactly which parts of relational theory are not supported by MySQL that cause it to be such a "poor database". But go ahead, convince me.
"And large companies have just as manyu poor database designers as smaller ones."
Let's just forget for a while that you are *again* bashing these highly succesfull companies and their developers because of their preference for a particular rdbms. Let's concentrate on your reasoning instead. You seem to want to imply that despite the fact that these companies are large (please note that I did not introduce "large" - you did. I just copied a list of names from the wikipedia), they still have poor database designers, just like smaller companies, and preferring MySQL over, say Postgres, is a symptom of having poor database designers, or being a poor database designer.
Well, I don't see how this can reflect negatively on MySQL. I mean, suppose all those poor database designers would suddenly switch to Postgres, would that make Postgres a bad product? Wouldn't they be poor database designers anymore?
"And MYSQL's level of capability is far less than Postgres - another known fact."
Well, that is quite possible. I wouldn't know that. However, I don't see how that could hurt using MySQl in enterprise or datawarehousing applications. I mean, MySQL does everything a database should do, and fast too, and I don't really see much reason for having capabilities beyond that.
"But for serious database work, Postgres is to be preferred." "And that remains a fact."
Well, could you at least name which users do what kind of serious database work that makes them prefer Postgres? After all if it's a fact, it should not be too hard to come up with a few examples, or one even.
"It seems to me to be common knowledge that MySQL was a poorly designed DBMS intended to be fast at the application of serving up Web pages for a Web site. It is not and never was designed to be a general purpose database for enterprise class production database and data warehousing applications."
I think you have mistaken one of the popular myths about MySQL for common knowledge. MySQL was originally created to meet the needs of a large datawarehousing environment and then become popular as a backend for websites primarily because of it's ease of use and it's speed.
"For anything else, more mature DBMS systems like Postgres are clearly preferred by anyone who knows anything about database and application design."
is in my opinion a rather blunt generalization which basically claims that MySQL users like Amazon.com, Digg, Google, Livejournal Slashdot, Yahoo, Nokia, flickr, YouTube and Wikipedia are basically a bunch of idiots that have no clue what they are doing.
This is/. after all, so it is only fair that your idea of what is common knowledge is also published. May it give lots of people a good laugh.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I was hoping you would finally come up with just one single argument to support your earlier claim that MySQL "...is a poor database from the standpoint of support of relational database theory."
It would be fab too if you could give just one example of a user that prefers Postgres for all that serious database work they need to do.
You might find it hard to believe, but I really am interested in your reasons for saying all these things.
My remark ("Well, that is quite possible. I wouldn't know that.") you are so eagerly lifting out of context was actually a nice way of letting you know that I think you made your remark ("And MYSQL's level of capability is far less than Postgres - another known fact.") just based on hearsay, esp. because you don't name even one such capability.
The attempts you have made so far to give your views some credibility, have only led to catchy phrases like "relational theory" but these remain utterly void since you take no effort to show that *you* actually know what you're talking about. Sure I can google - I'm interested in what *you* have to say about it.
Cutting this thread short by taking my comments out of context and totally ignoring sound critique is quite childish, and your eagerness in doing so makes me think you just want the easy way out. If you want the easy way out, the do so gracefully and just admit that your bashing is just a social thing, and not based on any technical experience.
"The facts remain that MySQL is used more for Web page serving than anything else."
Now that is indeed a fact as well as common knowledge. Actually it's probably two facts:
1) MySQL is used more often to serve web pages than to back other kinds of applications.
2) There is no other rdbms that is used so widely to serve web pages.
Having read your earlier statements:
"MySQL was a poorly designed DBMS intended to be fast at the application of serving up Web pages for a Web site. It is not and never was designed to be a general purpose database for enterprise class production database and data warehousing applications."
I believe you intended to express the first interpretation. Apparently, you are trying to prove again that MySQL is only suitable for serving web pages, and that that is one of the reasons why it is used so often for that purpose. Well, if the amount of usage is a really measure for suitability, where does that leave Postgres then?
"And the fact that large companies use it - perhaps even successfully -..."
Tsk, tsk "...perhaps...". They *are* using it successfully, and they are (in part) large companies *because* they use MySQL.
"...does not change the fact that it is a poor database from the standpoint of support of relational database theory."
I think you would have a hard time explaining exactly which parts of relational theory are not supported by MySQL that cause it to be such a "poor database". But go ahead, convince me.
"And large companies have just as manyu poor database designers as smaller ones."
Let's just forget for a while that you are *again* bashing these highly succesfull companies and their developers because of their preference for a particular rdbms. Let's concentrate on your reasoning instead. You seem to want to imply that despite the fact that these companies are large (please note that I did not introduce "large" - you did. I just copied a list of names from the wikipedia), they still have poor database designers, just like smaller companies, and preferring MySQL over, say Postgres, is a symptom of having poor database designers, or being a poor database designer.
Well, I don't see how this can reflect negatively on MySQL. I mean, suppose all those poor database designers would suddenly switch to Postgres, would that make Postgres a bad product? Wouldn't they be poor database designers anymore?
"And MYSQL's level of capability is far less than Postgres - another known fact."
Well, that is quite possible. I wouldn't know that. However, I don't see how that could hurt using MySQl in enterprise or datawarehousing applications. I mean, MySQL does everything a database should do, and fast too, and I don't really see much reason for having capabilities beyond that.
"But for serious database work, Postgres is to be preferred." "And that remains a fact."
Well, could you at least name which users do what kind of serious database work that makes them prefer Postgres? After all if it's a fact, it should not be too hard to come up with a few examples, or one even.
"It seems to me to be common knowledge that MySQL was a poorly designed DBMS intended to be fast at the application of serving up Web pages for a Web site. It is not and never was designed to be a general purpose database for enterprise class production database and data warehousing applications."
/. after all, so it is only fair that your idea of what is common knowledge is also published. May it give lots of people a good laugh.
I think you have mistaken one of the popular myths about MySQL for common knowledge. MySQL was originally created to meet the needs of a large datawarehousing environment and then become popular as a backend for websites primarily because of it's ease of use and it's speed.
"For anything else, more mature DBMS systems like Postgres are clearly preferred by anyone who knows anything about database and application design."
is in my opinion a rather blunt generalization which basically claims that MySQL users like Amazon.com, Digg, Google, Livejournal Slashdot, Yahoo, Nokia, flickr, YouTube and Wikipedia are basically a bunch of idiots that have no clue what they are doing.
This is