On 7 Feb 2002, at 12:26, Ann W. Harrison wrote:

> At 08:28 AM 2/7/2002 -0800, Rob Schuff wrote:
>
> >... there needs to be a ... feature-by-feature comparison of the
> >three. A white paper I suppose...i.e. some strong marketing. Is
> >there such a thing planned, in existence, etc?
>
> Anyone on this list who has experience with MySQL or PostgreSQL,
> please contact me. I can pull together some feature lists from the
> documentation, but there's nothing like real experience. MySQL has a
> comparison tester called crashme which works very badly with Firebird.
> If anyone would like to try to improve it, that would help us a lot.
>

I have used all three, MySQL is like a high end sports car, it's
really fast, but missing a lot of features that allow the developer to
shift the load around, for example triggers and SPs are missing. It
also could win an obfustication contest for it's licence, it's
sometimes GPL and other times not GPL, such as for commercial
use...

PostgreSQL is a hard sell in the NT world, it's about as user
friendly as a starving pit bull terrier stuck in a leghold trap. Okay
it's a little better under Unix, but it's far from an easy install unless
it's canned with the Unix software.

Oracle, you mentioned it, so although I have not administered it,
once you price it, you know why Larry Ellison isn't far behind Bill
Gates in riches, it's expensive, and resource hungry, kind of like
MS-SQL.

MS-SQL is a Microsoft fork of Sybase V10 for Windows, much like
FB is a fork of Interbase, however all MS did was hack the Unix
compliance out of it, like Oracle it's expensive and resource
hungry, I once saw MS-SQL running with 4 users, on a Pentium
Pro duelie, with 512MB ram, and UFW-SCSI RAID brought
completely to it's knees, also it's not Unix compatable, and that's
not good business sense these days....


Paul


Paul Schmidt
Tricat Technologies
paul@...
www.tricattechnologies.com