Is there any reason to avoid using postgresql for small web apps? That is, is it''s overhead so large that the lighter MySQL will work substantially better for small apps on small machines? Or are they very similar in performance and configuration? I''ve used MySQL but postgresql has its appeals and I''m wondering if I need to keep MySQL around at all. On the other hand, Postgresql claims that "Windows does not support Unicode" and you can''t have Unicode fields on postgresql on Windows. This is a big mistake. See: pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/faq/FAQ_windows.html Warren _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On 17/11/2005, at 8:16 AM, Warren Seltzer wrote:> Is there any reason to avoid using postgresql for small web apps? > That is, is it''s overhead so large that the lighter MySQL will work > substantially better for small apps on small machines? Or are they > very similar in performance and configuration? > > I''ve used MySQL but postgresql has its appeals and I''m wondering if > I need to keep MySQL around at all. > > On the other hand, Postgresql claims that "Windows does not support > Unicode" and you can''t have Unicode fields on postgresql on > Windows. This is a big mistake. See: > pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/faq/FAQ_windows.htmlI''ve been using PostgreSQL for a while now and I''ve never seen any performance issues. My blog runs on Typo backed by PostgreSQL and my latest rails app (wishlists.sitharus.com - very much in beta at the moment) runs on Postgres. As for the Windows Unicode issue, Postgres on Windows is a very new system, it''s quite possible there are issues they still need to work around. I don''t use Windows, so I wouldn''t know. -- Phillip Hutchings phillip.hutchings-QrR4M9swfipWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
--- Warren Seltzer <warrens-uf+uqdaZT6qTt3WsUyM9gg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Is there any reason to avoid using postgresql for > small web apps?None at all, IMO.> That is, is it''s > overhead so large that the lighter MySQL will work > substantially better for small apps on > small machines?I find PostgreSQL to be quite nimble. It''s my MySQL process that seems to inexplicably use CPU cycles, even when it''s not busy.> Or are they very similar in > performance and configuration?I find PostgreSQL performs as well as, and probably better. I also find it easier to configure and even compile from source. PostgreSQL is even easier to admin, since auto-vacuuming has been integrated into it.> I''ve used MySQL but postgresql has its appeals and > I''m wondering if I need to keep MySQL > around at all.Well, unfortunately there are many apps out there that are coded only for MySQL (like Wordpress)...> On the other hand, Postgresql claims that "Windows > does not support Unicode" and you can''t > have Unicode fields on postgresql on Windows. This > is a big mistake. See: >pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/faq/FAQ_windows.html What do you mean "a big mistake"? By Microsoft? Or PostgreSQL? csn> > Warren > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. farechase.yahoo.com
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 21:16 +0200, Warren Seltzer wrote:> Is there any reason to avoid using postgresql for small web apps? > That is, is it''s overhead so large that the lighter MySQL will work > substantially better for small apps on small machines? Or are they > very similar in performance and configuration? > > I''ve used MySQL but postgresql has its appeals and I''m wondering if I > need to keep MySQL around at all.PostgreSQL works great on small to large. I use it on simple stuff like my blog, rubyurl, my bands websites for just a guest book... and I''ve worked on systems that had a few TeraBytes of data in the past. Several of our client projects at PLANET ARGON involve migrating from existing MySQL schemas to PostgreSQL. Rails has actually helped speed up our migration process to about 60 seconds[1] of waiting time... and maybe 5-10 minutes of getting AR::Migration setup. PostgreSQL is teh bomb...and it works GREAT with PostgreSQL. :-) The license is also a bit more attractive for commercial usage. On a side note... you just started a holy war. ;-) [1] rubyurl.com/Qwj Good luck with your decision! -Robby p.s. constraints rock! -- /****************************************************** * Robby Russell, Founder.Developer.Geek * PLANET ARGON, Rails Development, Consulting & Hosting * Portland, Oregon | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068 * planetargon.com | robbyonrails.com * Programming Rails | programmingrails.com *******************************************************/
Robby, I''m currently using MySQL, and one of the things that holds me back about PostgreSQL is CocoaMySQL, which is teh bomb, and rocks :). Do you know of a similar solution for PostgreSQL and an OS X client? Dave On 11/16/05 12:31 PM, "Robby Russell" <robby.lists-/Lcn8Y7Ot69QmPsQ1CNsNQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> PostgreSQL is teh bomb...and it works GREAT with PostgreSQL. :-) > > p.s. constraints rock!
An OSX port of PgAdmin III is in the works: pgadmin.org/screenshots.php I just use phppgadmin and psql (command line) for everything. csn --- Dave Ringoen <email-aMBdsrFCgW+KfZpkr/XK+Q@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Robby, > I''m currently using MySQL, and one of the things > that holds me back about > PostgreSQL is CocoaMySQL, which is teh bomb, and > rocks :). Do you know of a > similar solution for PostgreSQL and an OS X client? > > Dave > > > On 11/16/05 12:31 PM, "Robby Russell" > <robby.lists-/Lcn8Y7Ot69QmPsQ1CNsNQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > PostgreSQL is teh bomb...and it works GREAT with > PostgreSQL. :-) > > > > p.s. constraints rock! > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >__________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! yahoo.com/r/hs
On Nov 16, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Dave Ringoen wrote:> CocoaMySQL, which is teh bomb, and rocksOther nice MySQL tools are avaialble, for free, from MySQL itself, are MySQL Administrator and MySQL Query Builder. Both are excellent and run on OS X. For pgsql check out pgAdmin III. --Steve
<pdsyahoo-rails-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2005-Nov-16 20:19 UTC
Re: Postgresql vs MySQL
I have been using MySQL 5 with great success! Thought about switching, but the MySQL license with 5 is much nicer for commercial use. Warren Seltzer <warrens-uf+uqdaZT6qTt3WsUyM9gg@public.gmane.org> wrote: Message Is there any reason to avoid using postgresql for small web apps? That is, is it''s overhead so large that the lighter MySQL will work substantially better for small apps on small machines? Or are they very similar in performance and configuration? I''ve used MySQL but postgresql has its appeals and I''m wondering if I need to keep MySQL around at all. On the other hand, Postgresql claims that "Windows does not support Unicode" and you can''t have Unicode fields on postgresql on Windows. This is a big mistake. See: pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/faq/FAQ_windows.html Warren _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
PGAdmin 3 works fine on OS X. On 11/16/05, CSN <cool_screen_name90001-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > An OSX port of PgAdmin III is in the works: > pgadmin.org/screenshots.php > > I just use phppgadmin and psql (command line) for > everything. > > csn > > > --- Dave Ringoen <email-aMBdsrFCgW+KfZpkr/XK+Q@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > Robby, > > I''m currently using MySQL, and one of the things > > that holds me back about > > PostgreSQL is CocoaMySQL, which is teh bomb, and > > rocks :). Do you know of a > > similar solution for PostgreSQL and an OS X client? > > > > Dave > > > > > > On 11/16/05 12:31 PM, "Robby Russell" > > <robby.lists-/Lcn8Y7Ot69QmPsQ1CNsNQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > PostgreSQL is teh bomb...and it works GREAT with > > PostgreSQL. :-) > > > > > > p.s. constraints rock! > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails mailing list > > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > > lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! > yahoo.com/r/hs > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- => the blog from beyond <=> eyeheartzombies.com <=
The "Big mistake" is in the Postgresql FAQ in saying that Windows doesn''t support Unicode. XP supports Unicode very well indeed. The FAQ I referenced prattles on about Slovenian code pages, of all things. Windows "Code pages" have been superseded by Unicode. If you go to msdn.microsoft.com and search for "Unicode" you get an eyeful. Having defended the undefendable, however, I''d like to know if postgresql really still doesn''t support Unicode on windows, as I plan to develop on WindowsXP and deploy on Linux. Warren Seltzer -----Original Message----- From: CSN [mailto:cool_screen_name90001-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:30 PM To: warrens-uf+uqdaZT6qTt3WsUyM9gg@public.gmane.org; rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org Subject: Re: [Rails] Postgresql vs MySQL ... pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/faq/FAQ_windows.html What do you mean "a big mistake"? By Microsoft? Or PostgreSQL? csn> > Warren > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. farechase.yahoo.com
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 12:50 -0700, Dave Ringoen wrote:> Robby, > I''m currently using MySQL, and one of the things that holds me back > about > PostgreSQL is CocoaMySQL, which is teh bomb, and rocks :). Do you know > of a > similar solution for PostgreSQL and an OS X client? > > Dave >I''m a command-line junkie for SQL. :-) pgadmin exists... but I don''t use it myself. With ActiveRecord::Migration + script/console, who really needs to do much in the way of crazy sql stuff anymore? -Robby -- /****************************************************** * Robby Russell, Founder.Developer.Geek * PLANET ARGON, Rails Development, Consulting & Hosting * Portland, Oregon | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068 * planetargon.com | robbyonrails.com * Programming Rails | programmingrails.com *******************************************************/
I guess if you like transferring dumps all the time... Go ask pg-general: archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2005-11/index.php csn --- Warren Seltzer <warrens-uf+uqdaZT6qTt3WsUyM9gg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> The "Big mistake" is in the Postgresql FAQ in saying > that Windows doesn''t support Unicode. > XP supports Unicode very well indeed. The FAQ I > referenced prattles on about Slovenian > code pages, of all things. Windows "Code pages" > have been superseded by Unicode. If you > go to msdn.microsoft.com and search for > "Unicode" you get an eyeful. > > Having defended the undefendable, however, I''d like > to know if postgresql really still > doesn''t support Unicode on windows, as I plan to > develop on WindowsXP and deploy on Linux. > > Warren Seltzer > > > -----Original Message----- > From: CSN [mailto:cool_screen_name90001-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org] > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:30 PM > To: warrens-uf+uqdaZT6qTt3WsUyM9gg@public.gmane.org; > rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > Subject: Re: [Rails] Postgresql vs MySQL > > ... > >pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/faq/FAQ_windows.html> > What do you mean "a big mistake"? By Microsoft? Or > PostgreSQL? > > csn > > > > > > Warren > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails mailing list > > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > > > lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in > one click. > farechase.yahoo.com > > >__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors'' Choice 2005 mail.yahoo.com
"On a side note... you just started a holy war." Sorry about the jihad -- I promise not to actually kill anybody... Warren
Robby Russell wrote:> The license is also a bit more attractive for commercial usage. >This can be pretty important for certain commercial uses. I''m fighting with a commercial product now that chose MySQL as a base and I''m rather disappointed that I''m forced to pay a yearly license fee as an end user. I like the fact that PostgreSQL is built from the ground up as a real SQL engine, with lots of features. It''s SQL syntax is standards based and not as arbitrary as some other implementations. Assuming you are properly using indexes, it is mighty fast for tables with many rows. Something I always do it tweak the service config to give it tons of memory, too. I think most distinctions which gave MySQL an ''edge'' in the past are moot pionts now. It''s not significantly faster (if at all), it''s not massively more popular (that is to an extent where it impacts support and debugging, anyway), and companies seem to be less sensitive to having to pay something to make them feel warm and fuzzy. Phil
CSN wrote:> --- Warren Seltzer <warrens-uf+uqdaZT6qTt3WsUyM9gg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > >>Is there any reason to avoid using postgresql for >>small web apps? > > > None at all, IMO.I much prefer postgresql for all sorts of reasons. The only downside I can think of is backup/restore is a little more straightforward on mysql. Especially backing up and restoring a whole series of database in one go. We had to write a little script to do that, but maybe its easier these days.. Oh yeah and sometimes, even with 8.0 it''s a pain to change column''s datatype, but maybe that holds true also for mysql if it''s using views and stored procedures etc. But I much prefer it over mysql as it has nice features and is more standards compliant. In mysql for instance you can (could?) have datetime values like 0000-00-00 00:00:00 and the whole set and enum things are just ugly. HTH, Jeroen
On 11/16/05, Warren Seltzer <warrens-uf+uqdaZT6qTt3WsUyM9gg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Is there any reason to avoid using postgresql for small web apps? That > is, is it''s overhead so large that the lighter MySQL will work substantially > better for small apps on small machines? Or are they very similar in > performance and configuration? > I''ve used MySQL but postgresql has its appeals and I''m wondering if I > need to keep MySQL around at all. > On the other hand, Postgresql claims that "Windows does not support > Unicode" and you can''t have Unicode fields on postgresql on Windows. This is > a big mistake. See: > pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/faq/FAQ_windows.html > Warren >I don''t think any of your worries have a real foundation, but IMO for a small non critical webapp it really doesn''t matter which one you use. Pick the one you like and use it. Chris _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Browsing around the web, I see many outdated comparisons of MySQL and PostgreSQL, but no comprehensive pros/cons between the two recent platforms, MySQL 4.1.x (and 5.0) versus PostgreSQL8.1. In particular, I wonder about contentions that: 1) PostgreSQLhas better data integrity than MySQL. This would make me opt for Postgres if I felt it were true. MySQL, though, has a pretty impressive array of large businesses using their software. Is there an architectural reason why Postgres 8.1 would be better than MySQL 4.1.x InnoDB for data integrity? 2) MySQL is faster than PostgreSQL. I believe this is mostly a MySQL MyISAM comparison, so it would only be useful for aspects of your web app that didn''t need transactional support. I have gone with MySQL because I took the path of least resistance from my first PHP/MySQL web apps. If 37signals say constraints are good, then I guess it''s good to have a constraint of being one man with one (very) small brain and not that much time already trying to learn parts of an OS-to-database stack. I''m not going to delegate business logic to the database in the form of stored procedures. I''m still undecided whether triggers and stored procedures make sense for my app. Other reasons I like MySQL: - It''s driven by a company and I believe this is a good way to drive open source projects. That''s not to say PostgreSQL lacks orbiting support companies, but MySQL is a fairly large company. - There''s a good selection of clients. Cocoa was mentioned. I''m using Webyog for Windows. DBDesigner and the upcoming MySQL Workbench are nice DB design tools. - No shortage of documentation and books, including proven strategies of replication at places like Yahoo. - (blue sky) Potential for radical upgrade using in-memory clusters. Yeah, I''m only dreaming about days when I''d actually need something like MySQL Cluster, and it''s a very different engine than standard MyISAM and InnoDB, but man, the specs look great. In a couple of years when memory is even cheaper and 64-bit CPUs are the norm for new server boxes, I wonder how much traffic a "simple" 3 box cluster could handle. _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On 17/11/2005, at 11:46 AM, Bill Katz wrote:> Browsing around the web, I see many outdated comparisons of MySQL > and PostgreSQL, but no comprehensive pros/cons between the two > recent platforms, MySQL 4.1.x (and 5.0) versus PostgreSQL8.1. In > particular, I wonder about contentions that: > > 1) PostgreSQLhas better data integrity than MySQL. This would make > me opt for Postgres if I felt it were true. MySQL, though, has a > pretty impressive array of large businesses using their software. > Is there an architectural reason why Postgres 8.1 would be better > than MySQL 4.1.x InnoDB for data integrity?ACID (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACID is a fairly good outline). The only real ACID backend MySQL has (InnoDB, nothing else is really ACID) has recently been purchased by Oracle, who aren''t exactly best mates with MySQL AB. Oh, and MVCC means Postgres is very fast with transactions.> 2) MySQL is faster than PostgreSQL. I believe this is mostly a > MySQL MyISAM comparison, so it would only be useful for aspects of > your web app that didn''t need transactional support.Not really true any longer. With some performance tuning - eg appropriate indexes and cache sizes, PostgreSQL is supposed to be pretty close to MyISAM''s speed, and that''s with ACID compliance. -- Phillip Hutchings phillip.hutchings-QrR4M9swfipWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On 11/16/05, Phillip Hutchings <sitharus-QrR4M9swfipWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > > ACID (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACID is a fairly good outline). > The only real ACID backend MySQL has (InnoDB, nothing else is really > ACID) has recently been purchased by Oracle, who aren''t exactly best > mates with MySQL ABThat doesn''t sound good. What does this mean for the future of the InnoDB engine? It''s open source, so they can''t remove it, but I guess the support can substantially decrease. Not really true any longer. With some performance tuning - eg> appropriate indexes and cache sizes, PostgreSQL is supposed to be > pretty close to MyISAM''s speed, and that''s with ACID compliance.Have there been any benchmarks published? Given my resources and time, though, the most applicable benchmark would be performance using standard configurations with simple modifications only -- no heroic reconfigurations. That''s also why I like MySQL. It has a reputation for being fast and reliable out of the box. _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On 17/11/2005, at 12:01 PM, Bill Katz wrote:> On 11/16/05, Phillip Hutchings <sitharus-QrR4M9swfipWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > ACID (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACID is a fairly good outline). > The only real ACID backend MySQL has (InnoDB, nothing else is really > ACID) has recently been purchased by Oracle, who aren''t exactly best > mates with MySQL AB > > That doesn''t sound good. What does this mean for the future of the > InnoDB engine? It''s open source, so they can''t remove it, but I > guess the support can substantially decrease.As it''s open source I''m assuming someone else will maintain it, but there wasn''t a huge development team beforehand. MySQL AB will probably hire someone.> Not really true any longer. With some performance tuning - eg > appropriate indexes and cache sizes, PostgreSQL is supposed to be > pretty close to MyISAM''s speed, and that''s with ACID compliance. > > Have there been any benchmarks published? Given my resources and > time, though, the most applicable benchmark would be performance > using standard configurations with simple modifications only -- no > heroic reconfigurations. That''s also why I like MySQL. It has a > reputation for being fast and reliable out of the box.Maybe I should do some, I have both MySQL and PostgreSQL on all my machines. They''re not amazing machines, but I''ll see if I can get some figures if I have time. -- Phillip Hutchings phillip.hutchings-QrR4M9swfipWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 12:06 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:> > Not really true any longer. With some performance tuning - eg > > appropriate indexes and cache sizes, PostgreSQL is supposed to be > > pretty close to MyISAM''s speed, and that''s with ACID compliance. > > > > Have there been any benchmarks published? Given my resources and > > time, though, the most applicable benchmark would be performance > > using standard configurations with simple modifications only -- no > > heroic reconfigurations. That''s also why I like MySQL. It has a > > reputation for being fast and reliable out of the box. > > Maybe I should do some, I have both MySQL and PostgreSQL on all my > machines. They''re not amazing machines, but I''ll see if I can get > some figures if I have time.Out of the box, PostgreSQL will be slightly slower. It assumes that you are working with a bigger system and it can be fine-tuned to be fairly fast. The real test is when your database grows... MySQL gets slower...and starves for more CPU...and PostgreSQL is the guy in the back room playing Doom while it just works. -- /****************************************************** * Robby Russell, Founder.Developer.Geek * PLANET ARGON, Rails Development, Consulting & Hosting * Portland, Oregon | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068 * planetargon.com | robbyonrails.com * Programming Rails | programmingrails.com *******************************************************/
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 23:33 +0100, Jeroen Houben wrote:> CSN wrote: > > --- Warren Seltzer <warrens-uf+uqdaZT6qTt3WsUyM9gg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > >>Is there any reason to avoid using postgresql for > >>small web apps? > > > > > > None at all, IMO. > > I much prefer postgresql for all sorts of reasons. The only downside I > can think of is backup/restore is a little more straightforward on > mysql. Especially backing up and restoring a whole series of database in > one go. We had to write a little script to do that, but maybe its easier > these days.. > Oh yeah and sometimes, even with 8.0 it''s a pain to change column''s > datatype, but maybe that holds true also for mysql if it''s using views > and stored procedures etc. > > But I much prefer it over mysql as it has nice features and is more > standards compliant. In mysql for instance you can (could?) have > datetime values like 0000-00-00 00:00:00 and the whole set and enum > things are just ugly. >For what its worth... the largest record store (besides Amazon) is using PostgreSQL.... oh and some little ruby project called Rails. I interviewed Jeremy (bitsweat) and Derek Sivers and asked them for their thoughts on this... oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/8274 -Robby -- /****************************************************** * Robby Russell, Founder.Developer.Geek * PLANET ARGON, Rails Development, Consulting & Hosting * Portland, Oregon | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068 * planetargon.com | robbyonrails.com * Programming Rails | programmingrails.com *******************************************************/
On 11/16/05, Robby Russell <robby.lists-/Lcn8Y7Ot69QmPsQ1CNsNQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > I interviewed Jeremy (bitsweat) and Derek Sivers and asked them for > their thoughts on this...Yeah, that was a good read. Sivers mentioned data-integrity issues as a reason for the switch, and I got the impression it was because of the numerous CDBaby subsystems (acct mgmt, audio backend, etc) that access his database independently of the web app. Do you know the particular reasons? Was it an "Application Database" versus "Integrated Database" issue, and PostgreSQL is especially suited for the latter? You also mention that as demand increases, MySQL needs more CPU relative to PostgreSQL. That seemed counter intuitive to me, given that MySQL has presumably simpler database engines. Is the load handling related to use of pgsql''s stored procedures and the like? -Bill _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Nov 16, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Bill Katz wrote:> Have there been any benchmarks published? Given my resources and > time, though, the most applicable benchmark would be performance > using standard configurations with simple modifications only -- no > heroic reconfigurations. That''s also why I like MySQL. It has a > reputation for being fast and reliable out of the box.All the AR-supported databases are fast and reliable out of the box. All of the open-source options are very easy to set up and configure, too. Times (in bogus-units) for one run of the Active Record test suite: 1670 SQLite 2.8.16 1640 SQLite 3.2.7 1380 MySQL 5.0.15 1260 PostgreSQL 8.1 The typical MySQL complaints do not affect the everyday MySQL user and are addressed in MySQL 5 nonetheless. So, wherever you turn, you won''t go wrong. Don''t obssess over it. jeremy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDe8hOAQHALep9HFYRAsqqAJ0TfRu0QrsiOSUbjs16nptqoadWugCgyWW0 95LmGhYJNfgGGneYYmgS0RM=P6A3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday 17 November 2005 00:01, Bill Katz wrote:> On 11/16/05, Phillip Hutchings <sitharus-QrR4M9swfipWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > ACID (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACID is a fairly good outline). > > The only real ACID backend MySQL has (InnoDB, nothing else is > > really ACID) has recently been purchased by Oracle, who aren''t > > exactly best mates with MySQL AB > > That doesn''t sound good. What does this mean for the future of the > InnoDB engine? It''s open source, so they can''t remove it, but I guess > the support can substantially decrease.The real problem appears to be that MySQL AB is dual-licensing MySQL. In addition to the GPL version they''re offering a commercial one. To be able to do this with the included InnoDB, they in turn need a commercial license of the latter, which is dual-licensed as well. AFAIR, the commercial licensing terms MySQL AB has for InnoDB are to be negotiated again some time next year. With Oracle being the new owner, the deal might be worse than before. This is speculation, of course... Michael -- Michael Schuerig Airtight arguments have mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org vacuous conclusions. schuerig.de/michael --A.O. Rorty, Explaining Emotions
--- Bill Katz <billkatz-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Other reasons I like MySQL: > - It''s driven by a company and I believe this is a > good way to drive open > source projects. That''s not to say PostgreSQL lacks > orbiting support > companies, but MySQL is a fairly large company.PostgreSQL seems to have a lot of backing from Redhat. I know they fund one of the key core developers. Redhat also repackages PG as their own database product. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors'' Choice 2005 mail.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Nov 16, 2005, at 3:40 PM, Bill Katz wrote:> Yeah, that was a good read. Sivers mentioned data-integrity issues > as a reason for the switch, and I got the impression it was because > of the numerous CDBaby subsystems (acct mgmt, audio backend, etc) > that access his database independently of the web app. Do you know > the particular reasons? Was it an "Application Database" versus > "Integrated Database" issue, and PostgreSQL is especially suited > for the latter? > > You also mention that as demand increases, MySQL needs more CPU > relative to PostgreSQL. That seemed counter intuitive to me, given > that MySQL has presumably simpler database engines. Is the load > handling related to use of pgsql''s stored procedures and the like?I don''t know about > CPU as DB size increases (doesn''t make sense to me), but PostgreSQL does do far better query planning. So if you do complex queries involving multiple joins, subselects, or multiple indexes, PostgreSQL blows MySQL and SQLite away. Firebird support has just been added to Active Record (thanks to Ken Kunz for the entire implementation). So there''s another open-source DB in the fray. Whew! jeremy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDe8x6AQHALep9HFYRAneeAKDAOhWZtctO8NWanvILAWcVznOKTACeJHGu jn4PhtF16aMjvyz8N9WpvrQ=Jgwn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 01:02 +0100, Michael Schuerig wrote:> AFAIR, the commercial licensing terms MySQL AB has for InnoDB are to be > negotiated again some time next year. With Oracle being the new owner, > the deal might be worse than before. This is speculation, of course...Let''s not forget that MySQL and a little DB company named SAP teamed up a few years back... and have taken a bite in Oracles pie. ...Oracle hasn''t forgotten. -Robby -- /****************************************************** * Robby Russell, Founder.Developer.Geek * PLANET ARGON, Rails Development, Consulting & Hosting * Portland, Oregon | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068 * planetargon.com | robbyonrails.com * Programming Rails | programmingrails.com *******************************************************/
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 16:12 -0800, CSN wrote:> --- Bill Katz <billkatz-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > Other reasons I like MySQL: > > - It''s driven by a company and I believe this is a > > good way to drive open > > source projects. That''s not to say PostgreSQL lacks > > orbiting support > > companies, but MySQL is a fairly large company. > > PostgreSQL seems to have a lot of backing from Redhat. > I know they fund one of the key core developers. > Redhat also repackages PG as their own database product. >They are backed by companies such as: postgresql.org/about/sponsors -Robby -- /****************************************************** * Robby Russell, Founder.Developer.Geek * PLANET ARGON, Rails Development, Consulting & Hosting * Portland, Oregon | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068 * planetargon.com | robbyonrails.com * Programming Rails | programmingrails.com *******************************************************/
Robby Russell wrote:>PostgreSQL is teh bomb...and it works GREAT with PostgreSQL. :-) > > >Lol. +1 from another satisfied PostgreSQL user. I''ve been developing web apps using PostgreSQL for almost 1.5 years, it''s fast and never let me down. Vamsee.
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 08:29 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote:> > As for the Windows Unicode issue, Postgres on Windows is a very new > system, it''s quite possible there are issues they still need to work > around. I don''t use Windows, so I wouldn''t know.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/release.html#RELEASE-8-1 (snip)> Allow the UTF8 encoding to work on Windows (Magnus) > > This is done by mapping UTF8 to the Windows-native UTF16 > implementation.-- /****************************************************** * Robby Russell, Founder.Developer.Geek * PLANET ARGON, Rails Development, Consulting & Hosting * Portland, Oregon | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068 * planetargon.com | robbyonrails.com * Programming Rails | programmingrails.com *******************************************************/
robby.lists wrote:> On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 08:29 +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote: >> >> As for the Windows Unicode issue, Postgres on Windows is a very new >> system, it''s quite possible there are issues they still need to work >> around. I don''t use Windows, so I wouldn''t know. > > postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/release.html#RELEASE-8-1 > > (snip) >> Allow the UTF8 encoding to work on Windows (Magnus) >> >> This is done by mapping UTF8 to the Windows-native UTF16 >> implementation.Everytime I think about migrating from MySQL to PostgreSQL I turn back. Time. MySQL I know. PostgreSQL I don''t. And it''s definitely got a steeper curve than MySQL. -- Posted via ruby-forum.com.
On 17/11/05, vern01 <joe01-PkbjNfxxIARBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> MySQL I know. PostgreSQL I don''t. And it''s definitely got a > steeper curve than MySQL.That''s because you know mysql. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns number9.hellooperator.net
Phillip Hutchings wrote:> > On 17/11/2005, at 8:16 AM, Warren Seltzer wrote: > >> Is there any reason to avoid using postgresql for small web apps? >> That is, is it''s overhead so large that the lighter MySQL will work >> substantially better for small apps on small machines? Or are they >> very similar in performance and configuration? >>Define smaller machine. I have noticed that machines which will barely run MySQL (my PDA) did not do so well with PostgreSQL, but on reasonable machines (at least 64M or memory) the differences are not so much. It depends on version, though, with Postgres 6.5 and 7.0.3, MySQL was faster, but ever since 7.1, it has been about the same. For little select only queries, MySQL may be a little faster, but for insert/updates, Postgres will appear faster when there are multiple concurrent clients because of MVCC being better than MySQL''s locking scheme. Also, as queries get more complex, and have many joins and sub queries, PostgreSQL is much faster than MySQL, or even Oracle from what I have seen, although DB2 seems to be even better with the ugly queries. I run PostgreSQL and Rails nicely on my performance test machine. It is an AMD366 laptop with 160M or RAM. If it is OK there, I don''t worry about performance tuning any more!
On Thursday 17 Nov 2005 10:56, vern01 wrote:> Everytime I think about migrating from MySQL to PostgreSQL I turn back. > Time. MySQL I know. PostgreSQL I don''t. And it''s definitely got a > steeper curve than MySQL.Hardly. I recently switched to PostgreSQL after quite a few years of MySQL usage, and to be honest, other than having to read a few docs now and then, and cope with a few slightly different types (eg. no enum type), it was extremely easy. Add PGAdmin3 to the mix, and it''s kids stuff. Besides, if we all stuck only to the technology we knew, almost nobody here would have adopted Rails. Change is good... or would you prefer to use PHP forever? Sometimes you just have to learn new stuff - although I try to do that every day, really. To be honest, there really isn''t that much in it, when it comes to MySQL versus PostgreSQL, especially when using Rails. Postgres is a little more hardcore, MySQL is a little easier, but unless you require a specific feature of one or the other, or your application has extreme requirements, you probably can''t go far wrong with either for the vast majority of situations. If other (non-Rails) applications will be accessing your database, I would say go with Postgres, purely because it gives you more control over the data integrity (although this may well be addressed in MySQL5, which I am yet to use). With a Rails-only scenario, the boundary is less defined. Personally, I love Postgres and I still like MySQL a lot too. Just my 0.02 British Pounds Sterling. :-) ~Dave -- Dave Silvester Rent-A-Monkey Website Development Web: rentamonkey.com
pdsyahoo-rails-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote:> I have been using MySQL 5 with great success! Thought about > switching, but the MySQL license with 5 is much nicer for commercial use.How so? I don''t know details about the MySQL 5 license but PostgreSQL is basically a straightfoward *BSD type license. Or are you talking about commercial support? -- Alan Garrison Cronosys, LLC <cronosys.com> Phone: 216-221-4600 ext 308
On 17/11/05, Alan Garrison <alang-+Dj+6f/KO4tWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> pdsyahoo-rails-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote: > > > I have been using MySQL 5 with great success! Thought about > > switching, but the MySQL license with 5 is much nicer for commercial use. > > > How so? I don''t know details about the MySQL 5 license but PostgreSQL > is basically a straightfoward *BSD type license. Or are you talking > about commercial support?I read that as ''much nicer (than mysql 4).....'' -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns number9.hellooperator.net
Dick Davies wrote:>On 17/11/05, Alan Garrison <alang-+Dj+6f/KO4tWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > >>pdsyahoo-rails-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote: >> >> >> >>>I have been using MySQL 5 with great success! Thought about >>>switching, but the MySQL license with 5 is much nicer for commercial use. >>> >>> >>How so? I don''t know details about the MySQL 5 license but PostgreSQL >>is basically a straightfoward *BSD type license. Or are you talking >>about commercial support? >> >> > >I read that as ''much nicer (than mysql 4).....'' > > >Okay, just I wasn''t sure if had some objection to PostgreSQL''s licensing for commercial use (which the license perfectly allows for). -- Alan Garrison Cronosys, LLC <cronosys.com> Phone: 216-221-4600 ext 308