Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 18th Apr 2005 19:05 UTC
Databases The PostgreSQL project has been steadily clawing its way up the ladder in mindwidth since its inception almost ten years ago. Many say they've changed from MySQL to PostgreSQL and never looked back. OSDir recently had a chance to chat with a few of the project's dedicated developers.
Order by: Score:
PostgreSQL
by Matt on Mon 18th Apr 2005 19:15 UTC

I'm an Oracle guy, by paid trade. When I need do OSS development and need Oracle like features I use PostgreSQL. It's a great Product ;)

@Matt
by emacs on Mon 18th Apr 2005 19:30 UTC

The very names, 'My-' vs. 'Postgre-' seem to hint at the level of marketing savvy of the teams.
Lack of a native .exe until recently has been the real stopper for PostgreSQL.
I think pigsqueal is a far and away the better tool. How can you not like compiling python right into it?

Another reason: License
by Matt on Mon 18th Apr 2005 23:00 UTC

Many people don't relize it, but the MySQL JDBC & Native drivers are GPL not LGPL. What does this mean? If you write and application, and connection to a MySQL server, you need to either:

1) GPL all of your code.

2) Buy a non-GPL version of MySQL.

I respect the MySQL people's choice of license, they can do whatever they want, but this makes PostgreSQL much more usable *FOR ME*. <- I used caps because I'm not trying to tell anyone else what to do, and start a huge flame war.

Re: Another reason: License
by walterbyrd on Mon 18th Apr 2005 23:41 UTC

Many people don't relize it, but the MySQL JDBC & Native drivers are GPL not LGPL. What does this mean? If you write and application, and connection to a MySQL server, you need to either:

1) GPL all of your code.

2) Buy a non-GPL version of MySQL.

======================================================

I don't think that is accurate. Please cite your source on this.

Re: Another reason: License
by Jay on Tue 19th Apr 2005 01:23 UTC

@By walterbyrd (IP: ---.hsd1.co.comcast.net)

See the MySQL Licensing FAQ:

http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/faq.html

Specifically the topic entitled "Previously, the MySQL client libraries were licensed under the LGPL (the Lesser General Public License) and now they use the GPL (the General Public License). What prompted this change?"

So the grandparent poster is right. If you distribute a binary that links to the MySQL client library (ie it talks to the server) then you are obligated to license your code under the GPL and provide the source for it upon request.

Re: Another reason: License
by walterbyrd on Tue 19th Apr 2005 01:54 UTC

I took a look, and it seems I was wrong - probably.

Clearly, the intention is to force non-commercial MySQL licensees to GPL their code, I'm not certain if it's enforcable.

If I write a lengthy PHP program, that makes one call to a database, and that database happens to be mysql, then I have to GPL my entire PHP program? That doesn't seem right.

Re: Another reason: License
by Jay on Tue 19th Apr 2005 02:15 UTC

If I write a lengthy PHP program, that makes one call to a database, and that database happens to be mysql, then I have to GPL my entire PHP program? That doesn't seem right.

http://www.php-mag.net/itr/online_artikel/psecom,id,618,nodeid,114....

See Question #5.

IANAL, but I agree with their analysis. Your PHP script is not directly linked to MySQL code. PHP is. PHP, which of course conforms to the licensing, executes your code. They pointed out that some may consider your PHP script a "derivative" work and therefore covered under the GPL.

I don't see it as much of an issue. If you're distributing PHP then the source is there for anybody to see, anyway.

Re: Matt
by Ulrich Hobelmann on Tue 19th Apr 2005 03:28 UTC

Most people don't use Windows for their servers (for good reasons), so the lack of an .exe isn't really that big.

About the python thing: I don't use Python, so I couldn't care less ;)

Anyway, PostgreSQL would be my SQL database, should I ever need one.

@Jay Re: Another reason: License
by Matt on Tue 19th Apr 2005 03:51 UTC

It is true that people can see your PHP source, but by having your code automatically become GPL it means that people have the *legal* right to use it for free, modify, and redistribute it without your permission.

**Once again I have nothing against the GPL license or the GNU camp. I'm only pointing this out because people sometimes don't realize the impact that GPL has on their code.

@Ulrich
by Matt on Tue 19th Apr 2005 04:03 UTC

Personally I agree with you. I'm a Solaris / OSX guy and only run my critical services on *NIX.

But almost all of my Windows friends use mySQL, and the only reason they do is because it has native binaries, and is easy for them to install. It is nice the PostgreSQL now has an option for them too. I'm sure there would be a lot more PostgreSQL users if they had come out with .exe files a year+ ago.

Funny that they would use mySQL over SQLServer. I love it when M$ can't even win over their own crowd ;)

v Re: @Ulrich
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Apr 2005 10:24 UTC
PostgreSQL 's licence is really free
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Apr 2005 13:34 UTC

PostgreSQL 's licence is really free unlike MySQL.

That's all there is to say to it if you want to use a databse for free without worries.

@Ulrich
by DonQ on Tue 19th Apr 2005 16:06 UTC

Most people don't use Windows for their servers (for good reasons), so the lack of an .exe isn't really that big.

You completely forgot about a lot of tiny/small development companies, who're struggling with MS DB solutions (Access is weak, MSDE is limited, MSSQL is expensive) and are searching for [cheaper for customers] alternatives. Windows native executable allows easily set up testing servers and play with these (although I myself did set PostgreSQL up on FreeBSD - such combination would be even nicer/cheaper for our customers ;) ).

Currently PostgreSQL (and pg win drivers - odbc, oledb) lack some of Microsoft SQL functionalty [used in our software] - but things are improving fast.

@DonQ
by jayson knight on Tue 19th Apr 2005 21:04 UTC

Sql2k5 express is going to overcome most of MSDE's weaknesses, they're upping the governer limit as well as the db size (4 gigs), plus it's shipping with some basic GUI client tools for mgmt (something MSDE doesn't have).

@jayson knight
by DonQ on Tue 19th Apr 2005 21:33 UTC

_Sql2k5 express is going to overcome most of MSDE's weaknesses, they're upping the governer limit as well as the db size (4 gigs), plus it's shipping with some basic GUI client tools for mgmt (something MSDE doesn't have)._

Right, but this the same Microsoft anyway. About GUI tools - we have created some ourselves, suitable for managing PostgreSQL either:) There exists at least one freeware SQL-DMO based SQLEM clone too.

Using FOSS database we can gain some customers though, especially if we can bundle this DB with apache web link (our current solution can use only IIS) on free OS; overall server software cost [for customer] will be lower (well, we'll get a bit more cash on supporting then, I hope...).

RE: About GUI tools
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Apr 2005 03:10 UTC

If you want free there is PG Admin III, it's not bad at all, but if you want something really nice with SQL code completion and a nice tabbed based enterprise manager check out PG Lightning Admin http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com
It's in a pre-release state, but you can pickup a copy for 15 bucks, I couldn't believe it when I saw it.
The latest release even has built in SSH tunnel support right in the server registrtion properties.

Cool
by Smartpatrol on Wed 20th Apr 2005 16:30 UTC

Funny that they would use mySQL over SQLServer. I love it when M$ can't even win over their own crowd ;)

For rinky dink database application Mysql on windows is fine. Srious Databases need serious software MSSQL(before you say Oracle! i feel Oracle is not the best choice for windows platforms)

I always prefered PostgreSQL over MySQL since MySQL always sacrificed functionality for speed which is great for a limited number of applications. It would be cool to see how PostgreSQL performs against Oracle on large deployments for example on a 32x32 Superdome running a 100GB database or larger is databases of that size even possible with PostgreSQL?