Jamza wrote:
Anyone who uses postgreSQL is retarded, the benefits are minimal at best and are far outweighed by the drawbacks when compared to MySQL or MSSQL.
Are you serious? PostgreSQL is by far the better option compared to MySQL, as long as you're not using the piece of shit slony.
Regardless, as long as you're not using slony, PgSQL is still more than fine. It has far better scalability and integrity than MySQL. Try running a MySQL db with thousands of concurrent users, it will all go down in flames.
But I wouldn't say that unless they were both getting equal as time goes by - that's not the point. PgSQL has a lot brighter future because it's not owned by anyone, whereas Oracle owns MySQL (who used to be owned by MySQL AB, who got bought by Sun, who got bought by Oracle) and the future doesn't look very bright.
edit:
To tell a story, at a I worked at we had a moderately sized database for our two db slaves, each running slony. Now, the DB wasn't used for anything critical - it was just for storing invoice data from several different companies, mostly for internal uses. Since slony is mostly used for duplicating data - much like RAID is for hard drives - the two slaves were backup servers.
This one time the place hosting a slave (the master and other slave being at another place) was destroyed in a fire. No worries - we got the backups on the other slave! Well, that was until we realized the backup server wasn't doing its job, there was some dumbfuck error in slony (which is the backup system), so we had no recent backups, which meant we had to use the primary server. We had to clone a 30 million row db in pretty much a time that would have been yesterday. The network and server load was so high we almost had to close the whole server and tell people to stop using it.
For small uses like this you could as well be using SQLite and not face data integrity issues. But for any large site I would stay far, far away from MySQL.
_________________
a.k.a. Ironballs