Topic: PostgreSQL?
I have seen it supported by forum software alot. I have never heard anyone actually use it. Have any of you tryed it?
Re: PostgreSQL?
Well, since PunBB supports it, I use it from time to time. It's probably the most advanced open source RDBMS. I must admit I do prefer MySQL, but PostgreSQL has support for more SQL goodies.
"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."
Re: PostgreSQL?
had to register so i could share a thought or two about this thread.
not trying to start a flame here, but IMHO, coming from an Oracle background, I find PostgreSQL superior to mySQL on every aspect ( the licensing to begin with; but also: http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html and http://vulcanus.its.tudelft.nl/~acm/got/antimysql.php ), the "performance" could have been an issue in the past, but now it seems to perform as well as mySQL ( even better on higher loads, i've heard ).
I use PostgreSQL on professional webapplications, when the client won't afford an Oracle license ( no, i don't deal with MSSQL, or microsoft servers, only *NIX ); the only reason i see people insist on using mySQL is the tight integration with PHP ( at compiling, PHP asks for mySQL install path... wtf ?!? ) and the windows compatability, therefore, so many (cheap) hosts offer it.
with me, the first thing i do as soon as i get a new server ( VPS or dedicated ) is to compile/install PostgreSQL; no matter what i'm doing ( mod_perl, php or JAVA ) the DB backend is either PostgreSQL or Oracle.
( and a happy new year to all you and your families, folks ! )
- Connorhd
- Former PunBB Developer
- Offline
Re: PostgreSQL?
its kind of a recurring circle though, mysql is more widely used so more script are made for it so it is more widely used, and if a host offers postgreSQL it seems to be an extra to mysql not a replacement, so i don't see postgresql becoming more used the mysql any time soon
Re: PostgreSQL?
slipwalker wrote:
had to register so i could share a thought or two about this thread.
not trying to start a flame here, but IMHO, coming from an Oracle background, I find PostgreSQL superior to mySQL on every aspect ( the licensing to begin with; but also: http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html and http://vulcanus.its.tudelft.nl/~acm/got/antimysql.php ), the "performance" could have been an issue in the past, but now it seems to perform as well as mySQL ( even better on higher loads, i've heard ).
I don't want to start a flame war either, but that antimysql.php is just hilarious. Especially the "Missing functionality" section. E.g. "No foreign keys with default tableformat". True, the MyISAM table type does not have support for foreign keys, but if I need foreign key support, I'll just make my tables InnoDB instead. I mean, with MySQL, you can _choose_. You can use the insanely fast MyISAM if you don't need e.g. foreign keys or row-level locking. Say you've got a table that is filled with 40 million rows of data that hardly ever changes. What good does the overhead of low-level locking do you then? Nothing. It just slows things down.
Also, regarding performance, I have yet to see a decent benchmark performed to settle the "dispute". There's that old one by Tim Perdue from phpbuilder.com, but it's like three years old (and it was seriously flawed). The only thing I've noticed when working with these two databases is that MySQL is a lot faster under little to no load. Install two PunBB's side by side. One using MySQL and one using PostgreSQL. Then enable PUN_SHOW_QUERIES and compare how long each query takes (and the total page generation time). The difference is huge. I have no idea what happens under heavy load though, so benchmarks on that matter would be interesting.
slipwalker wrote:
I use PostgreSQL on professional webapplications, when the client won't afford an Oracle license ( no, i don't deal with MSSQL, or microsoft servers, only *NIX ); the only reason i see people insist on using mySQL is the tight integration with PHP ( at compiling, PHP asks for mySQL install path... wtf ?!? ) and the windows compatability, therefore, so many (cheap) hosts offer it.
PHP does not ask for the MySQL install path during compilation. Where did you get that from? In PHP4, the MySQL client library was bundled with PHP and therefore it made sense to enable the extension by default. You did not have to supply the configure script with a path to any MySQL directory. It used the bundled library. In PHP5, it is no longer bundled and in order to use MySQL with PHP5, you have to explicitly tell configure that you want it (--with-mysql=/path/to/mysql).
I guess this turned into a flame war after all. Oh well, a flame a day keeps the doctor away.
"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."
6 2005-01-03 00:43 (edited by slipwalker 2005-01-03 00:57)
Re: PostgreSQL?
a newer "benchmark", altough the load is yet too light: http://benchw.sourceforge.net/benchw_results_open3.html
using the newest beta version of each Database.
Rickard wrote:
You can use the insanely fast MyISAM if you don't need e.g. foreign keys or row-level locking.
i *must* disagree on that, but for me an RDBMS ( lil'troll says: "assuming mySQL would qualify as such" ) must be reliable, not "insanely fast" ( the hardware should be fast, the software must be reliable )... and reliability means Referential Integrity, locks, and hot backups; hence, MyISAM tables should be scorched from the face of Earth, and we should never, ever, talk about them again... 
Rickard wrote:
PHP does not ask for the MySQL install path during compilation. Where did you get that from? In PHP4, the MySQL client library was bundled with PHP and therefore it made sense to enable the extension by default.
yes, you're right, of course... that's what i couldn't remember, there *is* a bundled mySQL into PHP4... sorry, got confused.
Rickard wrote:
In PHP5, it is no longer bundled and in order to use MySQL with PHP5, you have to explicitly tell configure that you want it (--with-mysql=/path/to/mysql).
hey, that GREAT news ( obviously i haven't been following PHP5 development )... if i don't want mysql on my server, why the scripting language should have that overhead ?!... hmmm... as soon as i find some spare time i might have some PHP5 testing to do...
Rickard wrote:
I guess this turned into a flame war after all. Oh well, a flame a day keeps the doctor away.
not at all, we haven't even called each other names, yet.... 
oh, one more thing, ( just a matter of personal preference ) before i forget, i really hate software i can't just "./configure && gmake && gmake install"... mySQL install process used to be waaaay too different ( also is sapDB/maxDB/whatever ), i don't know how it is nowadays.
Re: PostgreSQL?
slipwalker wrote:
a newer "benchmark", altough the load is yet too light: http://benchw.sourceforge.net/benchw_results_open3.html
using the newest beta version of each Database.
I'm not sure I would trust a benchmark written and run by a guy who has had a website at http://techdocs.postgresql.org/markir/. Looking at the numbers and comparing to my own experience with the two databases, I seriously doubt their correctness.
slipwalker wrote:
i *must* disagree on that, but for me an RDBMS ( lil'troll says: "assuming mySQL would qualify as such" ) must be reliable, not "insanely fast" ( the hardware should be fast, the software must be reliable )... and reliability means Referential Integrity, locks, and hot backups; hence, MyISAM tables should be scorched from the face of Earth, and we should never, ever, talk about them again...
It all depends on where you apply it. I couldn't care less for referential integrity or hot backups in a simple discussion forum such as this. If I was working on some integral part of a banking system, I would of course stay away from MyISAM tables, but quite often, speed will be prioritized before reliability. In a lot of applications, losing a days work once a year is better than buying twice as expensive hardware. Again, in MySQL you have the choice, in PostgreSQL you don't.
slipwalker wrote:
not at all, we haven't even called each other names, yet....
Yet 
slipwalker wrote:
oh, one more thing, ( just a matter of personal preference ) before i forget, i really hate software i can't just "./configure && gmake && gmake install"... mySQL install process used to be waaaay too different ( also is sapDB/maxDB/whatever ), i don't know how it is nowadays.
To tell you the truth, I haven't compiled MySQL in a while either. I've opted to go with MySQL's pre-built binaries. They generally perform better on Intel hardware than GCC-compiled ditos.
"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."