digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Five reasons why you should never use PostgreSQL -- ever

searchopensource.techtarget.co… — In an effort to dispel some of the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) surrounding this impressive product, this article puts forth several of the most commonplace reasons for not further investigating PostgreSQL.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • gjones, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17The benefits of postgres, particularly over MySQL, should really be brought to the attention of (web-)developers everywhere. I fail to understand why anyone would use MySQL as an alternative given the limitations.
    • fleetskeet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Why is MySQL so much more popular than Postgre?
    • monolith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5fashion... and it was probably first out the door in massive use... same old reasons.
    • fartninja, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Limitations? (yeah, I do know PG has more features.)

      PG is a great product. I just like Mysql better. I am used to it, it has never failed me, it's quite easy (coming from a MSSQL background), and as far as features go, Mysql does everything I want it to. (sprocs, triggers, views now) So I have not been limited, particularly from a web dev standpoint.

      In any case, I would agree that PG is a wonderful, powerful, and very capable (more than Mysql) SQL server. It's great to see some FUD clearing, on any OS DBMS.
    • PerkyGoth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0no one offers postegres because everyone else offers mysql instead. it's self fulfiling. besides, not even an updated mysql at that.
    • jkronz, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11(admitted mysql advocate)
      My top5 reasons not to use postgres (Last time I checked it ~2 years ago)
      1. Vacuuming... give me a break. If it's required then build it in and make it so I don't have to worry about it.
      2. Sequences - yeah that's how all other databases work... right. (I think they finally fixed this, but it was too late for me)
      3. Careless use of my UNIX prompt. "createdb, etc " yeah those won't be used by any other program...
      4. 95% of web apps do not need transactions, and mysql *was* faster because of it. Performance counts. (postgres has gotten better, admittedly).
      5. Couldn't create databases remotely without first connecting to an existing database! And remote/local users created and treated differently.

      Bonus reason: If you have to have a "mp3" on your front page to explain the pronunciation of the product name then change the name! jesh.
    • osterman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18"95% of web apps do not need transactions"

      God help you.
    • captaindan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"2. Sequences - yeah that's how all other databases work... right. (I think they finally fixed this, but it was too late for me)"

      Actually, it is how other databases work. Oracle and DB2 use sequences for auto-numbering.

      "4. 95% of web apps do not need transactions, and mysql *was* faster because of it. Performance counts. (postgres has gotten better, admittedly)."

      95% of web forums and home pages don't need transactions (but would still benefit from them). 95% of real web applications with real business rules absolutely require transactions.
    • ph713, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5jkronz:

      1. Vacuuming is automatic and built-in now with recent Postgres.
      2. I don't know what your sequence issue is, but if you think it might be fixed, it probably is
      3. rm those commands if you don't want them, or install postgres into a seperate directory tree. Most of them are just shortcuts as they can just as well be done from within a psql prompt.
      4. That's a matter of religious debate. I would argue that all professional rdbms usage needs both relational integrity and transactions, unless it's being written and maintained by a moron who doesn't know better. Anything dinky enough to not need either one could probably be done easier and possibly faster with a simple berkley database or a text file. Those things are the heart of what an rdbms is, and shame on mysql for supporting them as merely second-class optional features if at all for all these years.
      5. You only have to connect to the "template1" database remotely to create new databases. It exists in all postgresql installations by definition. Therefore that's pretty much a non-issue. You could also connect remotely to a commandline in whatever fashion your operating system supports and run "createdb", assuming you didn't nuke that command per above.
    • timmarhy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@jkronz

      1.

      vacuuming is required by ALL DATABASES. sometimes it comes under different names, but it is a requirment to remove dead tuples and empty rows that are a result of updating or deleteing.
      as of version 8 pg now includes auto vacuum which contains many tunable options. regular database maintence is a requirement of all db's, no exceptions.

      2. Sequences - yeah that's how all other databases work... right. (I think they finally fixed this, but it was too late for me)

      what about them?

      3. Careless use of my UNIX prompt. "createdb, etc " yeah those won't be used by any other program...

      so what, createdb ends up in pgsql/bin on my system i don't see the problem? oh wait, your talking about linux distro's that screw this up for themselfs putting ***** in non standard places.

      4. 95% of web apps do not need transactions, and mysql *was* faster because of it. Performance counts. (postgres has gotten better, admittedly).

      mysql is faster if your just doing a select on a few tables. try doign something more complex and then we will see who is slow. and god help you not using transactions.

      5. Couldn't create databases remotely without first connecting to an existing database! And remote/local users created and treated differently.

      i have no idea what your on about here. i can create databases via ssh easily. and what do you mean local and remote users are treated differently?



    • jkronz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@timmarhy & osterman

      Jesh can we get off the high horse on transactions? God help me? Seriously.

      There are far too many debates on the transaction issue, and I'll bet both of you use far more database driven applications that do *not* use transactions than do. Especially in the web space.

      I never said transactions weren't a benefit, I said they weren't *needed* and obviously a lot of others feel the same way.

      When I need transactions I'll try Innodb, postgres, oracle, etc. And yes I've needed them, but always seemed to be able to code around not having them, hmmm.

      Oh and for some reason my full response is at the bottom of the page. srry for breaking the thread.
    • TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+195% this, 95% that. I love completely unsupported statistics... like this one: "79.48% of statistics are made up on the spot."

      Or was it 86%... or 82%... or 42.5%... or 42.7%? Damn... we can't agree on the fake percentage for that stupid joke!
  • Seumas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10That's odd. I've never even heard ANY reasons for not using postgresql. In fact, the only people I've ever known who don't use postgresql don't use it simply because they'd never heard of it or they're required to use something else at the office already.
  • lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18These are actually common misconceptions on why not to use PostgreSQL, not actual reasons.
    • naros, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0That is somewhat of a bold statement.
  • DoctorWhohaa, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Is everyone else getting sick and tired of these "5 reasons why" blurbs that only show half stories, and back it up with little to no real world data? The "Why Vista will/won't suck" crap did me in. If you want more than just the fanboy reactionism, give me a "30 page dissertation why not to use Postgres" or something similar.
  • eleven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yes - I wish all hosting providers provided postgres. I work at an ISP and we use it internally - mostly on my demand.
    I've used both and I prefer postgres by far.

    MySQL does have two really big pluses though.
    1: Full Text searches built in.
    2: Scales better to a multiple servers environment.
    • Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Last time I checked, full-text indexing might be built into MySQL, but you can't use it with InnoDB, which means you have to choose between data integrity and full-text indexing. PostgreSQL's support for full-text indexing might not be built in, but you don't have to throw away the integrity of your data to get it, you just need to install a separate package. I see full-text indexing as a huge *downside* to using MySQL.
  • dragoth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I use MySQL because I use a lot of packaged PHP apps and don't want a terribly involved installation procedure on my Linux box. When I installed PHP with my distro's package system, MySQL came along for the ride, so I use it.

    /shrug
  • datagod, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I just wish I knew how to pronounce it...

    Post Gres Quill?
    Post Gruh See Quil ?
    Post Gree Es Queue El?
  • iblaine, on 10/12/2007, -24/+3lol. It's doesn't run on windows is listed as the #1 reason. Who is this author? I want to meet this genius.
  • N3wtR0ckn13, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5flame.
  • wjgilmore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Hi iblaine,

    Given I'm the genius who wrote the article, I felt the need to respond. Although a longtime Linux and open source user and advocate, I'm not blind to the fact that Windows makes up a substantial portion of both the shared and dedicated server market. Furthermore, PostgreSQL has long been marked for its lack of Windows support (which changed with the version 8 release), a feature that is no doubt crucial to experimentation and eventual adoption among newcomers to the world of open source. After all, from what camp do you think these users are coming from? It sure isn't from a purely Linux environment, although this will in all likelihood change over time. In the interim, consider keeping in mind the oh, say 95% of the remaining market that has yet to be converted.

    Best
    Jason
    • kloidster, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Jason,

      In light of your above comment, I am a little confused with what your stance is on this. How can you say in one article (quite vociferously I might add) that because of PostgreSQL's lack of support for Windows, that it is a good reason to avoid it forever? Yet you tell us that it now does have support for Windows. It doesn't seem to me that your #1 reason is all that rock solid of a reason (I won't waste my time delving into your other reasons).

      Regards,
      Kloidster
    • loginx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You have completely missed the point due to lack of RTFA.
      The article title might lead you to believe that the author is listings reasons why you shouldn't use PostgreSQL while what it does in fact is list some common misconceptions about PG and try to explain why they are not accurate. The first item titled "It doesn't run on Windows" is dispelled by a short summary that explains that as of PG 8.0, PG has native windows support and that therefore, this "reason" really is a myth.
    • ohhhL3ThaL, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5if you wrote the article, that was horrible written.
    • psylence, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10^^^ irony alert
    • mdepolli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Great article, Jason. Those five points come pretty close to covering all the excuses I usually hear for not using Postgres. Actually, I consider it a good thing when there actually IS an excuse since it generates a starting point for discussion. Most of the time, though, it's just pure and distilled emotional prejudice against open-source in general, usually in the environment of big companies' IT departments.
  • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Hmmm, I don't even use PostgreSQL, and these reasons, to me, came off as being pretty dumb. Really stretching. Was the author being sarcastic?.

    On another note, I think a major reason for MySQL's dominence is because it comes with every damn hosting account on the planet. Even the really, really cheap ones. Add to that phpMyAdmin, and even DB newbies can get their feet wet with DBs. Maybe if more host would offer PostgreSQL (is it really THAT hard?) it would pick up in popularity.
    • wjgilmore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4hi headzoo,

      You're absolutely right, MySQL is a major player in the Web hosting, but not due to any particular reason other than perhaps circumstance. Don't misunderstand, I love MySQL, as might be implied by the dozens of articles I've written about it over the years, however in the end one (be it the user or ISP) could just have easily used PostgreSQL as could they MySQL for many cases.

      As to whether my reasons were stretching, it's fairly apparent this article wasn't geared towards experienced users, but rather towards the developer with little experience working with databases not capable of running on multiple operating systems nor supporting a variety of language extensions. Further, the article was written to dispel the myths of no technical support options for users of open source projects. Therefore, I'm glad you read it, but aren't sure you were necessarily the target audience, as might be obvious by its content.

      Jason
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Jason,
      Sorry if it seemed I was bashing the article. I wasn't. It seemed to me you were pointing out why you SHOULD use PostgreSQL, but with the guise of being why you shouldn't. From reading your article, I could only feel that I should start using PostgreSQL, not the other way around.
  • putnam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The title the author used for the article is extremely misleading, and now we have a bunch of retards commenting who haven't read the article at all.
  • dgath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I'm a developer/engineer for a VoIP company, we migrated from MySQL to Postgre about a year ago and our lives have been much better since. I hate working on MySQL now.
    • loginx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1We use it at work too and we just say Postgres... for the exact same reasons :)
  • RailsAddict, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1We got tired of trying to pronounce it at work, now we just say "PG", works find and you don't sound like a tard when you pronounce it umpteen different ways :)
  • mattcohn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3A note to the submitter... yeah work on your titles please! Could you actually use an informative title rather than just copying and pasting the article?
  • tarun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I have a bad taste in my mouth for PostGreSQL because my ex-employer made me use it and we didn't quite get along. Just the thought of writing SQL scripts for that guy makes me sick. He called it "PostGre" too--like saying SQL would kill him.

    P.S.: I'm a pretty loyal employee, but I'm not going to put up with ANYTHING. This is so OT, but I think it reminds ppl that everyone has personal reasons.
  • max_payne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I thik the title is misleading and it was OKAY article. worth digging.

    My thought, I love PostgreSQL. I have used PostgreSQL as well as MySQL. MySQL is easy to install, use. But it has a lot of limitation. For e.g. true SQL-92 standards compatibility, robust transaction support, boolean data type (i think it is there in version 5 or so), etc. PostgreSQL is as easy as MySQL to install but it's not difficult as well. If you want features like Oracle, SQL Server and dont want to pay huge prices, PostgreSQL is the ONLY solution.

    If you think from developer point of view, PostgreSQL is better even though it is little tough to work with.

    I will use PostgreSQL and recommend it to use. I think PostgreSQL is more famous in Europe then US. And best of all it's free to use and distribute.

    Long live PostgreSQL. :)
  • zlajoie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The title is just dumb... I went in there looking for a flame war to start. Postgres vs. THE WORLD. I use Postgres for the GIS capability and MySQL for the quick and easy database apps.
    • wjgilmore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3LOL of course you went in looking for a flame war to start. This is exactly the point of the article. PostgreSQL, like so many other open source databases present such a viable solution to corporate environments, yet it remains a topic of needless controversy.
  • olegk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"PostgreSQL vs MySQL: Which is better?"
    http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mysql/article.php/3288951

    "Comparison: MySQL vs. PostgreSQL"
    http://uphpu.org/article.php?story=20050526083509771

    "MySQL vs. Postgres"
    http://technology.rustybrick.com/blog/archives/000927.html
    • wjgilmore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Hi olegk,

      Thanks for the links, but to clarify the intent of this article wasn't to compare/contrast MySQL with PostgreSQL, but rather to push the point that OS databases are ready to rock-and-roll. MySQL rocks. PostgreSQL rocks. And so do MS SQL Server, IBM DB2, and Oracle, provided you have a valid reason to use them. If not, then why are you wasting your money, given that they support all common interfaces, and run on all standard platforms?

      Jason
    • rosebot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think that the fact that there has been no Windows version until the most recent is something that makes it pretty obvious why there aren't more people using it. Version 8 has been out just over a year, you expect everyone who was currently using mysql at that time to just jump ship, including the hosting companies who have been providing mysql for years?

      I've love to use it but until
      1. my webhost supports postgresql
      2. there is a simple util that assists in data migration
      3. there is a good admin tool, (i love mysql-front)..
      4. there is a easy install and setup for windows for development (currently i use xampp)

      i dont think i'll be playing with it. glad to see more articles, just write more on how to move from mysql!
  • kloidster, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2After posting above comment, I actually just read your article (instead of just glossing over your reasons), and see that you state the #1 reason to avoid PostgreSQL is "It doesn't run on Windows", yet you state that it DOES run under windows a few sentences later. I only have one thing to say in response to that: BIZARRE! I fail to see the logic in slamming a product (regardless of it's quality) just because it doesn't support Windows, yet you mention that the latest version does indeed support Windows; moreover, it has a very convenient installation program to do so!

    Also, reason #3 needs some explanation as well: WHAT LANGUAGE ARE YOU PROGRAMMING IN??? You've pretty much listed that it supports quite a few popular languages, and even some esoteric ones, yet you conveniently omit the language that you program in without even mentioning it.

    I don't mean to cause a flame war here, but your article does more to confuse and inflame rather than to inform or educate. You have stated a number of reasons to avoid PostgreSQL, but have spent more time knocking those same reasons down instead of supporting them with viable arguments.
    • kloidster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Damn, I feel like a JACKASS!!!!

      From the article:

      "In an effort to dispel some of the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) surrounding this impressive product, instead, I'll put forth several of the most commonplace reasons companies have for not investigating PostgreSQL further."

      Please digg me down to infinity!!!! I think I need a puzzle captcha to make sure I'm awake in the future! Jason, I deeply apologize for my ignorance. Unfortunately for me, I'll probably get ripped to shreds by the whole Digg community...

      [but hey, I should get some credit for quoting the guy and proving myself wrong, right guys???]

      :(
    • p3ngu1n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem is, the author didn't do a great job of explaining what he was going to do and I'm guessing a large percentage fell into the same bucket as you (I did, I thought it was going to be a PG bashing). The title of both articles are so misleading and totally un-informative that it sways you towards that and then when you start reading the article, you have it in your head that the author is trying to provide reasons why you SHOULDN'T use PG (and judging from the title, I don't know why you would ever think that.......). In any case, it's a decent article, but the in his effort to dispell the FUD, he actually achieved the opposite effect, I'm guessing. From the comments in here, I'm pretty sure I'm right.
  • jeedee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Im not quite sure on this but isn't there limitations for commercial use with MySQL ? If for instance I make a CRM app that I sell .. doesn't that requires me to buy MySQL licenses?
    • daskalou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What are the catches associated with selling PG with ur app as opposed to MySQL?

      What if I make an app that requires a MySQL or PG DB, but I only sell the PHP source code? Are there any license fees required to be purchased for either one?
    • captaindan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Yes, you must buy licenses in order to use MySQL as part of a commercial product.
  • wjgilmore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2kloidster,

    believe me, I'm regretting the choice of title at this point, as despite what I thought was blatant sarcasm, is clearly misleading. I'm glad to read the article, and welcome your comments! Thanks! -W. Jason Gilmore.
  • chemokid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There is more commercial support available for PostgreSQL from Sun..
    http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/postgres.jsp
  • jrsims, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You know, I'd love to see a similar article about FreeBSD. For the life of me, I can't figure out why FreeBSD didn't explode the same way Linux did! (or MySQL, for that matter).

    Like PostgreSQL, FreeBSD is a very well engineered and mature product. Lots of big names (including Yahoo!) have bet their businesses on it. It's more unixy and standards-driven than Linux, and some say the BSDs are way beyond Linux in terms of security and application as a server. It's certainly more efficient than Linux when it comes to networking and web serving (30%-40% better, according to studies) and won't crumble as fast as Linux servers would under the same load, on the same kind of hardware. Documentation for FreeBSD is some of the most complete of pretty much any OS product, and package management is a breeze.

    The LAMP stack gets lots of publicity these days, and while LAMP is undeniably a valid platform, I'm not sure it deserves all the credit it's getting. In fact, I think an even more powerful stack is emerging that geeks will want to know about: BSD, Apache, PostgreSQL, and Ruby (The "BRAP" stack??). The strength in this stack (vs LAMP) is even greater stability, agility, and more tightly managed update cycles (translates into less impact on business IT).

    So why IS there such a fuss over LAMP? Maybe the "LAMP" acronym has done for Linux what "AJAX" did for JavaScript? Is it something about the viral nature of the GPL? Is LAMP somehow more friendly to the lay-user and hobbyist than BRAP is?

    Thoughts anyone??

    • Milo_Hoffman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2>>For the life of me, I can't figure out why FreeBSD didn't explode the same way Linux did!

      That one has a simple answer.

      It's the license.

      The fact is that the GPL attracts WAY MORE developers willing to donate their blood sweat and tears to a project because they will feel like there is a less of a chance with the GPL for someone to come along and "steal" their work and do something with it they didn't approve of etc.


      BSD is a nice license and all, but MANY open source developers just don't feel it's worth the effort to put lots of hard work just to have all their work mooched off of by some greedy company.


      THAT is the reason that Linux has such a huge developer community compared to the BSDs.

      And the larger development community translates into faster development and improvements, faster new features, more people to provide input and innovation, and the larger user community simply follows that.

    • ph713, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2[I'm a Linux user, but I am at least familiar with the *BSDs and I'm trying to be even-handed here]

      The way I see it, aside from the GPL/BSD license issue someone else already mentioned, the biggest issue is that the *BSDs really haven't triumphed on the performance front. I don't know where you pulled those numbers from, but apples to apples (same application software, same environment, both either dev or production latest releases at a given point in time), Linux has won the performance crown for quite some time.

      On the security front, it's hard to really judge, but I'd put them about even at the moment. Both sides take security very seriously, but Linux has a lot more eyes on it (good and bad eyes). This means both it gets targetted more and gets cleaned up more, YMMV.

      I do admire the cleanliness and standards-conformance of the BSDs though, but without a clear performance edge and with the license burden turning away developers, I don't see them pulling ahead in the near future. If those problems were ever overcome, I'd jump ship in a heartbeat though.

      As an aside, if you're going to start replacing parts of the "LAMP" thing, go all the way and also replace Apache with Lighttpd, and make your platform BLPR. Lighttpd knocks the socks off of Apache and is well-tuned to modern BSD and Linux kernels. The only reason I see to stick with Apache anywhere these days is in support of legacy applications that are tied to specific Apache mod_xxxx's.
    • timmarhy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2like plenty of companies aren't mooching off GPL and getting away with it anyway.

      plenty of developers work on bsd anyway, i think the poster was reffering more to the fact linux has become this kind of pin up child for OSS
    • Punani, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@milo_hoffman

      If I recall correctly, the reasons FreeBSD and the other BSDs failed to take off initially when 4.4BSD became freely distributable because of the 2-year lawsuit by AT&T over possible AT&T code in the release.

      Furthermore, the 4th clause of the BSD License caused it to be incompatible with the GPL until it was rescinded in 1999 by UC Berkeley.
  • Milo_Hoffman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>If for instance I make a CRM app that I sell .. doesn't that requires me to buy MySQL licenses?

    As of version 4, the answer is yes. Because MySQL changed from being LGPL to GPL, so if you link with the client libraries you need a OEM license to be able to distribute to your customers. Its not that expensive though.

    There are of course a couple of ways around this:

    1) Use Perl, Python or PHP which are GPL products to develop your application and then your not distributing MySQL, your just have to specifiy it as a "installation requirement" along with Perl/PHP etc.

    2) Just GPL your application and sell support, training etc. This makes you legal but still able to make money off the product. Certainly not unheard of.



    PostgreSQL is BSD licensed on the other hand so you are free to re-distribute it and any applications built on its client libraries as you choose in commerical products.


    To each his own.




  • thirdtenor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Those are 5 reasons someone else should not use it, none of them apply to me
  • rkeene0517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just switched from MySQL to PostgreSQL. I did it because there were unending problems with Ruby and Java with the drivers disconnecting and such. No such problems with PostgreSQL.

    On major problem with PostgreSQL has been that the one click install in Windows doesn't seem to work with Rails.
    Dang! Can;t any data base just work? I even have had such little problems with Oracle too.
  • Brajeshwar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0> Reason #1: It doesn't run on Windows
    That is a very stupid reason to point it out as a "Reason-not-to-use-PostGreSQL".

    > Reason #2: No professional development and administration tools
    There are fairly good enough tools for such a new database. This sacrifice is well worth the good things that PostGreSQL have to offer in return.

    > Reason #3: PostgreSQL doesn't support my language
    Alright

    > Reason #4: There's nobody to blame when something goes wrong
    Yes, it is not for the faint hearted, point-click-drag-drop-vb-enthuthiast programmers who would freak out when things don't work when they drag and drop!

    > Reason #5: You (don't) get what you (don't) pay for
    I am pretty sure, the concluding point is for posterity sake!
  • jkronz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Thanks for the feedback. Glad to see the improvements on the Postgres side like I stated it's been 2 years since I looked at it (been using MySql ever since).

    And I still stand by the fact that 95% don't need transactions. "Benefit" is a religious debate ;-)

    Then again, I'm one of those guys who rarely places business logic (stored procedures, etc) in the database. And for most of my stuff a flat file would actually work quite well, although having the api/structure of a database does help. Speed and ease of use have typically been my driver.

    You guys pretty much made my point though. Vacuuming *was* a problem (fixed). The command line issues, still need to be fixed after install. How would I, out of the box, know that "template1" exists? Sequences I'll concede, as I came from sybase land, not DB2/Oracle. These were all things that bothered me that fateful week I decided to try an OSS database many moons ago.

    Bottom line, I felt like a fish out of water with postgres, and right at home with mysql. Obviously a lot of others did too.

    Oh and I see, thankfully, no one defends that ridiculous name...

    I'll give postgres a try again, apt-getting now. But I doubt I'll be switching anytime soon.
  • naros, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The title of this article is terribly misleading.
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Little offtopic - anyone use pg replication(slony)? I'm curious how it scales in the 'real world'.
  • PurpleMeteor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2This article MUST be a joke, the reasons given are so ridiculous, all I see is a big advertisment for Oracle...
  • clevershark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Seriously, if you think this article was literally listing "5 reasons never to use PostgreSQL" I suggest you get your sarcasm detector fixed.

    Now personally I don't like Postgres because although it does install on Windows now it screws up something about the Windows account that it uses to run as a service. If you've ever tried restarting it and got the message that it couldn't be restarted because of a logon failure, you know what I mean.

    I don't really see what Postgres has beyond what MySQL 5 offers. MySQL has had transactions for a while now (InnoDB). V5 also has triggers and stored procedures, two things that had been missing from its feature set. If you're already using either one I don't see a reason to switch to the other at this point.
  • yttrx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Someone has sour grapes about not being able to get postgres to work. It happens. If you want a database system that's easier to understand, use foxpro or MSSQL. Or if you want one that works, use oracle, sybase, or db2.
  • tcaduto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Reason #2: No professional development and administration tools

    One of the best commercial ones for win32 is at http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com
    And you can get it for 5 bucks until March 21st.
  • tcaduto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The command line issues, still need to be fixed after install. How would I, out of the box, know that "template1" exists?"

    You don't even need to use the command line, just use a nice GUI admin tool like PG Lightning Admin:
    Check it out here:http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com
  • merlyn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Argh... I keep seeing "postgre" "postgre". Please stop it.

    It's pronounced POST GRES CUE ELL. Which shortens to Postgres. No part of that is ever "post gre"!

    If you clowns would stop saying "SQL" as "Sequel", you'd already abbreviate it correctly!
  • MrPhelps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Off topic but for the defense of the autor, he didn't know the article would be posted on digg where the average reader has an IQ of 25 and does not know the meaning of the word "irony".
    You may now proceed to digg me six feet under ...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.