Lennart Sorensen wrote:
That is pretty much still true since the replication option on mysql requires using a different backend which looses a bunch of the other mysql features, and is as far as I can tell still rather questionable in use.
Eh? I've been using replication for years now. It works out of the box, rock solid, and nothing special on the backend at all. Master produces binary log, which is replayed on the slave(s). Nothing "questionable" about it, it's used in many large scale installations. Again, more FUD.
If all you do is store indexed data in some tables, then mysql does great, and is pretty fast at it too. If you have complex relationships and want to do queries that use other query results as filters, then you will find postgres far superior to mysql. Some people think subselects are essential, in which case to them, mysql is just a toy database. If you don't use such features then mysql is great.
You can declare any feature to be "essential" and then denigrate other products that don't have it as "toys". Personally I've never missed subselects, which, to me, means they are not exactly essential. Of course, the riposte to that is to claim that I'm somehow not a "real" DBA, or not running a "real" database. Whatever evidence is presented to prove that MySQL is a perfectly cabable database manager, the PostgreSQL zealots then simply say "Well, that's not a real database application", or "Well, maybe it's ok for running a hobby website"... ok, whatever. You can't argue with people who have such a religious mindset that no amount of evidence or argument can change their viewpoint. From my end, I can happily accept that PostgreSQL has some cool features, it's no skin off my nose, though most of these features are such that I would never have actual cause to use them. Personally, I like to keep the database simple, and keep my logic in the application, not in the database. Amazingly, the world does not fall down around my ears as a result. In any case, MySQL does now support things like subqueries, views and stored procedure for those who want them. Transactions have been there for a long time now.
Some people like to have business rules and logic embedded in the database; other people think it's a terrible idea and stay well away from it. As with many things, it's a matter of taste. You can declare something to be a toy all you like, but many large installations use MySQL for very large-scale, non-trivial tasks. Purists may like PostgreSQL, but people who are simply interested in getting the job done tend to do just fine with MySQL.
All of this patronizing parroting of the same tired dogma is so counter-productive and bitchy... it turns me right off.
/Neil