Explaining the MySQL bandwagon

csn

Why do you think people get so set/fanatical on MySQL?

they have never tried other databases
they are ignorant about other databases
mysql is usually readily available (installed by default)
they get kick backs or other renumeration from MySQL
they're taking advantage of the newbie db market (but why promote only mysql anyhow and not mention other db's - better (pg, ...) or simpler (sqllite)?).
mysql books, seminars, consulting, etc. are more lucrative

I can understand the newbies, but why does it seem there are many seasoned db'ers that act like it's the one and only database? I think they're in it for the money, and are dishonest by exclusively propping it up so much.

bad76

Hi,
I can found more reasons for that:
- first, as you said, mysql is included in all linux distribution.
- In php the function are built-in.
- It's free. (for now... :rolleyes: ).
- It's very apache friendly.
- don't require a lot of HW.

And the people are always get so set/fanatical on each program linux-style working better any other m$-style program. 😃

(And for now is a standard, so you can get any server and be sure you can get mysql on it!...)

csn

first, as you said, mysql is included in all linux distribution.

Postgres is becoming more common. All my new servers came with it installed. If you're able, PG is really pretty easy to install on linux.

In php the function are built-in.

Yep. I think there was talk on php-internals about making mysql not enabled by default, and actually making PG functions enabled by default. I don't think it had enough support though. But they're going to have sqllite by default (which I don't think I'll ever use).

It's free. (for now... ).

So is PG. MySQL is trying some funky stuff with their licenses. There was a page on their site that said, basically, if you develop an application that is intended to use MySQL specifically, then you, as a developer, need to buy licenses.

It's very apache friendly.

don't require a lot of HW.

All true with Postgres. I just got some new redhat 9 servers - PHP+Apache2+PostgreSQL is definitely performing better than my old RH7-PHP-Apache1-MySQL servers. I also have had problems with MySQL on these servers - on one mysql ate up all the memory, or the other it ate up all the cpu. No idea what the problem was.

csn

Some other reasons I've heard from the MySQL crowd:

full-text indexing/searching (there is an add-on for PG - OpenFTS: http://openfts.sourceforge.net/)
replication. PG's replication recently hit version 1.
mysql is really really fast at selects. I've heard PG has closed this gap in the not too recent past.
mysql has really great tools - like phpmyadmin. PG has plenty too - phppgadmin3

bad76

Originally posted by csn
Postgres is becoming...

Yes. This is right the point: now the standard is MySQL.
For much many reasons.

And the status of things is this:
MySQL🙁from manual )
"PHP will use the bundled MySQL client libraries. In Windows, there is no DLL, it's simply built into PHP 4. "

PgSQL🙁from manual )
"PostgreSQL module may be loaded using extension directive in php.ini or dl() function. [...]"
"Not all functions are supported by all builds. [...]"
"Using the PostgreSQL module with PHP 4.0.6 is not recommended [...]"

I hope all this change because MySQL's news are not so well... but NOW this is.

csn

I wouldn't call mysql a "standard" simply because it's installed more often by default than postgresql.

PHP postgresql library can be compiled into PHP, obviating the need for php.ini or dl().

PHP 4.0.6 really is old

csn

I thought of more rhetoric:

mysql x.y.z will have everything that it doesn't currently have and that db X currently does have!