postgre vs MySQL

[Lincoln Yeoh]

At 11:37 AM 3/13/2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:

>I remember seeing something about some problems that using the
>tablespace per table option on some mysql site... goes to look...
>paraphrased from the Mysql Performance Blod...  Using the
>innodb_file_per_table=1 setting really tends to work against you, as
>you tend to get lots of bloated tables over time.  If all your innodb
>tables are in the same file, then when one frees space, another can
>use it.  with files per table, you can't recover space this way.

With separate files per table, the space returns to the filesystem if
you run "optimize table" (something like "vacuum full").

In contrast when you have a single 70GB file with all the tables, it
NEVER shrinks unless you drop the entire database and reload it. That
could take more time than you get from the Boss/Customer standing
behind you (and asking every 5 minutes - "Is it back up yet?").

Also if you do that huge file thing:
1) From my experience, deleting stuff from innodb tables doesn't free
space up to be used by other tables, you still need to run optimize table.
2) I suspect even if you do "optimize table", often fragmentation or
something happens so not all space can be reclaimed - so that huge
file will tend to grow faster than your data does.
3) Depending on how much free _usable_ space there actually is left
in that huge file, optimize table could cause the single huge file to
get bigger because it makes a copy of the entire table.
4) The times when most admins want to do "optimize table" are often
the very times where 2)+3) could cause major unhappiness ;).

If you use innodb_file_per_table=1, you have a better idea of how
much space each table takes up, so you can figure out which tables
you should start with first and schedule shorter periods of time to
run "optimize table" on each table.

That said, many times it's just postponing the inevitable - you
regularly get some pain (optimize locks the table), the pain
gradually increases as your tables get bigger :). Hopefully by the
time the pain is a lot, people would have come up with better alternatives.

Currently postgresql's "vacuum full" also locks the affected tables.
Does 8.3 vacuum full effectively make a copy of the entire table? How
much extra space will the various vacuums use while vacuuming?

Regards,

Link.


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Steve Crawford]

> Currently postgresql's "vacuum full" also locks the affected tables.
> Does 8.3 vacuum full effectively make a copy of the entire table? How
> much extra space will the various vacuums use while vacuuming?
>
As to 8.3 and how it handles vacuum-full internally, I can't say for
certain without reading the notes. I suspect it is an in-place operation
similar to prior versions.

But if you are running PG 7.0 or later (maybe even earlier, I didn't
look) and have enough disk space to replicate the table, you can use
CLUSTER to do a copy-to-new file and delete old file operation. It does
still lock the table and it does require that the table have an index
based on which it will physically reorder the table but it is usually
_way_ faster and you get fresh indexes as a bonus.

IOW, PG offers you the choice to pick whichever is best for you.

Cheers,
Steve


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Alvaro Herrera-7]

Steve Crawford escribió:

>> Currently postgresql's "vacuum full" also locks the affected tables.  
>> Does 8.3 vacuum full effectively make a copy of the entire table? How  
>> much extra space will the various vacuums use while vacuuming?
>>
> As to 8.3 and how it handles vacuum-full internally, I can't say for  
> certain without reading the notes. I suspect it is an in-place operation  
> similar to prior versions.

VACUUM FULL is in 8.3 pretty much the same that's on previous versions.
You are advised to stay away from it, though, as much as possible.

> But if you are running PG 7.0 or later (maybe even earlier, I didn't  
> look) and have enough disk space to replicate the table, you can use  
> CLUSTER to do a copy-to-new file and delete old file operation. It does  
> still lock the table and it does require that the table have an index  
> based on which it will physically reorder the table but it is usually  
> _way_ faster and you get fresh indexes as a bonus.

You can use CLUSTER reliably only from 7.2 upwards.  (Or was it 7.3?  I
forget).  In earlier versions it would lose information about other
indexes (i.e. those not being clustered on), foreign keys, inheritance,
etc; in other words pretty much a disaster except for the simplest of
tables.  Also, it is MVCC-safe only from 8.3 upwards; on older versions
it (incorrectly) deletes dead tuples that are still visible to old
transactions.

Of course, the main problem with CLUSTER is that it needs about 2x the
disk space of table + indexes.

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Adrian Klaver]

On Thursday 13 March 2008 5:36 am, rrahul wrote:
> Thanks to all you wonderful people out their. I don't know if its your love
> for Postgres or nepothism that makes it look far superior than mysql.
> But why does the client list dosen't tell that?
> I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel......
> What about Postgres the list is not that impressive.

There is an old saying "If 'everybody' else is jumping off a cliff should you
too?"  Years ago I played around with MySQL because that was what "everybody"
was using. The problem was it did not do what I wanted and Postgres did. Be
less concerned with marketing lists and more concerned with what the software
can help you do. Draw up a list of things you need in a database and then use
the previous answers to decide which database better serves your needs.

>
> Are their any major implementations that moved from Mysql to Postgres?
> Howmany out their have done this or will advice to do that?
>
> cheers,
> Rahul.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/postgre-vs-MySQL-tp15976517p16024988.html Sent from
> the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
Adrian Klaver
aklaver@...

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Andrej Ricnik-Bay]

On 14/03/2008, rrahul <rahul.rathi@...> wrote:
>  Thanks to all you wonderful people out their. I don't know if its your love
>  for Postgres or nepothism that makes it look far superior than mysql.
>  But why does the client list dosen't tell that?
>  I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel......
>  What about Postgres the list is not that impressive.
What can I say?  96% of personal computers run some form of
windows.  Does that mean it's a superior product to a PC running
Linux, or a Mac w/  MacOS?
I'd say "no" (actually more like "NOOO!"), because windows doesn't let
me do 80% of the things that I do (need to do) with my PC.

From the fact hat the user-base is so massive, can I deduce that
windows is superior in terms of security or easy maintenance?
My personal experience says "No, no way".

What then?  Could it be marketing or the sad results of a avalanche
effect? Geee, there's a thought.


>  cheers,
>  Rahul.
Cheers,
Andrej

--
Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :}  Make your quotes concise.

http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Tom Lane-2]

"Andrej Ricnik-Bay" <andrej.groups@...> writes:
> On 14/03/2008, rrahul <rahul.rathi@...> wrote:
>> I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel......
>> What about Postgres the list is not that impressive.

> What then?  Could it be marketing or the sad results of a avalanche
> effect? Geee, there's a thought.

Marketing.  Remember that MySQL AB have a strong financial incentive to
make organized efforts to locate and publicize impressive-sounding users
of MySQL. (I've heard rumors they even give licensing discounts to
companies that will let their names be used like that.)

There is no comparable effort happening on the Postgres side.  There are
plenty of impressive users of PG too, but they don't have to talk about
it.

                        regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[David Wall]

> What then?  Could it be marketing or the sad results of a avalanche
> effect? Geee, there's a thought.
>  
What a wide variety of topics.  One big difference for me is that MySQL
used to be open source, but it no longer is.  It's an odd hybrid OSS
that barely makes sense to me since they claim to be open source under
the GPL, and while you can contribute code to them (I did so in their
JDBC driver many years ago before switching to Postgresql), they then
own the code (fine!), but if you want to use it in any system that's not
itself open source, you have to pay to get a license.  Pay for GPL software?

But they proudly state they are part of LAMP, yet only the "M" charges
to use their software.  The real leaders in these open source camps are
Linux and Apache, neither of which have such absurd pseudo-open
licensing terms.

David

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Steve Crawford]

Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:

> On 14/03/2008, rrahul <rahul.rathi@...> wrote:
>  
>>  Thanks to all you wonderful people out their. I don't know if its your love
>>  for Postgres or nepothism that makes it look far superior than mysql.
>>  But why does the client list dosen't tell that?
>>  I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel......
>>  What about Postgres the list is not that impressive.
>>    
> What can I say?  96% of personal computers run some form of
> windows.  Does that mean it's a superior product to a PC running
> Linux, or a Mac w/  MacOS?
> I'd say "no" (actually more like "NOOO!"), because windows doesn't let
> me do 80% of the things that I do (need to do) with my PC.
>
> >From the fact hat the user-base is so massive, can I deduce that
> windows is superior in terms of security or easy maintenance?
> My personal experience says "No, no way".

Whoa! Sure glad I read this thread. I was about to buy a Bentley but now
that I know that sales figures are the sole measure of quality I can see
that the Kia is clearly a superior vehicle.

But seriously, some of the most disappointing products and services I've
had the misfortune to connect with were also the most popular choices.

It's interesting to look at the past several years' Linux Journal
Readers' Choice Awards (basically a popularity contest) where MySql
consistently takes top place vs. the Editors' Choice Awards where the
writers have to lay-out their evaluation/reasoning. For the editors,
PostgreSQL is #1 year after year.

Also, a simple "used by" is pretty meaningless as it can range from
"core component of large-scale mission-critical 24x7 infrastructure" to
"used by secretary to manage holiday card list". If you are a marketroid
attempting to assemble an impressive-looking client list, guess where
the threshold will be.

Cheers,
Steve

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Greg Smith-12]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, rrahul wrote:

> I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel......

Sure they are.  Do some reading on the Google installation.  The blog list
at http://www.mysql.com/customers/customer.php?id=75 works as well as any.

The reality here is that Google was just about fed up with MySQL not
working well enough for them circa 2000, and what they ended doing is a
combination of customizing MySQL to add the features they needed along
with doing a large-scale replication job.  They don't need any instance to
be reliable, they solve that problem with redundancy instead.

Look at http://code.google.com/p/google-mysql-tools/wiki/Mysql4Patches 
They had to add multiple replication features and fix some tiny little
bugs, you know things like "Changed InnoDB to recover when InnoDB and
MySQL data dictionaries are inconsistent".*

Now, ask yourself this:  do you have that level of resources?  Are you
going to write your own recovery tool when MySQL bungles a commit and the
data dictionary is screwed up?  If not, I wonder how much that Google has
managed to hack MySQL into a usable state for them should matter to you.

* Why does this data dictionary corruption happen in MySQL?  Because the
data dictionaries (which they just call metadata), the most important
tables in the database, are still using a design that frankly is garbage.
See http://forge.mysql.com/w/images/0/0a/Mdl.pdf for details, it starts
with the cheery "Designed in the pre-transactional era of MySQL,
[metadata] has not had an overhaul or a clean up ever since then".

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@... http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Ivan Sergio Borgonovo]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:08:27 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@...> wrote:

> "Andrej Ricnik-Bay" <andrej.groups@...> writes:
> > On 14/03/2008, rrahul <rahul.rathi@...> wrote:
> >> I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel......
> >> What about Postgres the list is not that impressive.
>
> > What then?  Could it be marketing or the sad results of a
> > avalanche effect? Geee, there's a thought.
>
> Marketing.  Remember that MySQL AB have a strong financial
> incentive to make organized efforts to locate and publicize
> impressive-sounding users of MySQL. (I've heard rumors they even
> give licensing discounts to companies that will let their names be
> used like that.)
>
> There is no comparable effort happening on the Postgres side.
> There are plenty of impressive users of PG too, but they don't have
> to talk about it.

I still find impressing that Google uses MySQL... I can guess why,
I'd enjoy to hear a more informed opinion.
I'd say: 1) legacy 2) no particular interest in data
integrity/coherence

Something more here
http://www.postgresql.org/about/casestudies/
and a bit updated would help too.

--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Chris Browne]

d.wall@... (David Wall) writes:

>> What then?  Could it be marketing or the sad results of a avalanche
>> effect? Geee, there's a thought.
>>
> What a wide variety of topics.  One big difference for me is that
> MySQL used to be open source, but it no longer is.  It's an odd hybrid
> OSS that barely makes sense to me since they claim to be open source
> under the GPL, and while you can contribute code to them (I did so in
> their JDBC driver many years ago before switching to Postgresql), they
> then own the code (fine!), but if you want to use it in any system
> that's not itself open source, you have to pay to get a license.  Pay
> for GPL software?
>
> But they proudly state they are part of LAMP, yet only the "M" charges
> to use their software.  The real leaders in these open source camps
> are Linux and Apache, neither of which have such absurd pseudo-open
> licensing terms.

Indeed.  If Linux had had the same sorts of obligations as MySQL(tm),
it would have wound up a mere curiosity, because there were plenty of
other OS projects around of fairly comparable functionality
(particularly if we step back to 1993!), and no one would have put up
with such in that context.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="linuxfinances.info" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://linuxfinances.info/info/multiplexor.html
:FATAL ERROR -- VECTOR OUT OF HILBERT SPACE

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Joshua D. Drake]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:08:27 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@...> wrote:
 
> Marketing.  Remember that MySQL AB have a strong financial incentive
> to make organized efforts to locate and publicize impressive-sounding
> users of MySQL. (I've heard rumors they even give licensing discounts
> to companies that will let their names be used like that.)

That's fairly standard practice. We have actually had customers try and
negotiate that with us. "If you give us a discount you can use our name
in xyz...". Of course, we don't :) but then again that's why you don't
see our name attached to large rollouts (even though you can see large
rollouts attached to us.)

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ 
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
      PostgreSQL political pundit | Mocker of Dolphins

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH2dVdATb/zqfZUUQRAjFWAJ9MJibdGfK+mV7ZcOnsi2BK5j5k2wCcCh7t
zRi1usSR6m/zgLV2BEcUG7w=
=7h9t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Andrej Ricnik-Bay]

On 14/03/2008, Steve Crawford <scrawford@...> wrote:
>  > What can I say?  96% of personal computers run some form of
>  > windows.  Does that mean it's a superior product to a PC running
>  > Linux, or a Mac w/  MacOS?
>  > I'd say "no" (actually more like "NOOO!"), because windows doesn't let
>  > me do 80% of the things that I do (need to do) with my PC.
>  >
>  > >From the fact hat the user-base is so massive, can I deduce that
>  > windows is superior in terms of security or easy maintenance?
>  > My personal experience says "No, no way".

> Whoa! Sure glad I read this thread. I was about to buy a Bentley but now
>  that I know that sales figures are the sole measure of quality I can see
>  that the Kia is clearly a superior vehicle.

Heh. :}

A silly question in this context:  If we know of a company that does use
PostgreSQL but doesn't list it anywhere ... can we
tahttp://www.securecomputing.com/techpubsRC.cfm?pid=85ke the liberty
to
publicise this somewhere anyway?

E.g. the  control center (
http://www.securecomputing.com/techpubsRC.cfm?pid=85 )
uses postgres, the only official attribution (I've seen the binaries in the
file-system) is that their product uses port 5432 in the manual.



Cheers,
Andrej

P.S.: This is all really starting to belong to advocacy :}



--
Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :}  Make your quotes concise.

http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Greg Smith-12]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:

> A silly question in this context:  If we know of a company that does use
> PostgreSQL but doesn't list it anywhere ... can we take the liberty to
> publicise this somewhere anyway?

Bad idea.  There are companies who consider being listed as a user of a
product a sort of recommendation of that technology, and accordingly they
will get really annoyed if you do that when they didn't give you
permission.  This has actually happened, where someone has asked to be
removed from the list of those using PostgreSQL.

While it's fun to run "strings" on random software to see who is using
PostgreSQL inside, it's best not to publish the results unless you like to
collect cease & desist letters.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@... http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Joshua D. Drake]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:05:10 -0400 (EDT)
Greg Smith <gsmith@...> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
>
> > A silly question in this context:  If we know of a company that
> > does use PostgreSQL but doesn't list it anywhere ... can we take
> > the liberty to publicise this somewhere anyway?
>
> Bad idea.

Very bad idea.

>  There are companies who consider being listed as a user of
> a product a sort of recommendation of that technology, and
> accordingly they will get really annoyed if you do that when they
> didn't give you permission.  This has actually happened, where
> someone has asked to be removed from the list of those using
> PostgreSQL.

Yes it has.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


- --
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ 
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
      PostgreSQL political pundit | Mocker of Dolphins

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH2fpEATb/zqfZUUQRAjktAJ9ApY2Mgtylm5Ud13wAIjoDhudfOACeNgQv
cuEmfQ3IT3MtPoPcdazXwKw=
=7NTF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Aarni Ruuhimäki]

Hi,

This has been a very interesting thread indeed.

I think the popularity of any Big Name $oftware with a 'nice' price tag has
also something to do with the fear of taking responsibility for your own
actions and decisions.

With a Big Name you can always blame them if something goes wrong instead of
having to admit that it was you who actually did something stupid.

But as said, popular does not necessarily equal to superior.

I have used PG since RedHat 6.2 (can't remember the PG version of that time)
and now use it on FC, CentOS and Ubuntu. My dbs are not large, the biggest
one has sixty odd tables and the biggest table is holding now around 100.000
rows. But I have seen it reach that from zero, with version upgrades and
without any real db-related problems.

Best regards,
--
Aarni Ruuhimäki
---
Burglars usually come in through your windows.
---

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[jose javier parra sanchez]

>  itself open source, you have to pay to get a license.  Pay for GPL software?

You cannot be serious, GPL has no relation with monetary value. The
GPL is a 'Usage License'.  If i write GPL software to my clients,
should i give it free of charge ?. That's absurd.

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Magnus Hagander-2]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 08:08:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Andrej Ricnik-Bay" <andrej.groups@...> writes:
> > On 14/03/2008, rrahul <rahul.rathi@...> wrote:
> >> I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel......
> >> What about Postgres the list is not that impressive.
>
> > What then?  Could it be marketing or the sad results of a avalanche
> > effect? Geee, there's a thought.
>
> Marketing.  Remember that MySQL AB have a strong financial incentive to
> make organized efforts to locate and publicize impressive-sounding users
> of MySQL. (I've heard rumors they even give licensing discounts to
> companies that will let their names be used like that.)

Of course they do. All commercial companies do. It's called marketing. (I
know JD is going to say he doesn't. So ok, change that to almost all
commercial companies do)

Ever heard of Microsoft? Best way to get a 95% discount? That's about it..

//Magnus

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Magnus Hagander-2]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 02:29:07AM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:08:27 -0400
> Tom Lane <tgl@...> wrote:
>
> > "Andrej Ricnik-Bay" <andrej.groups@...> writes:
> > > On 14/03/2008, rrahul <rahul.rathi@...> wrote:
> > >> I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel......
> > >> What about Postgres the list is not that impressive.
> >
> > > What then?  Could it be marketing or the sad results of a
> > > avalanche effect? Geee, there's a thought.
> >
> > Marketing.  Remember that MySQL AB have a strong financial
> > incentive to make organized efforts to locate and publicize
> > impressive-sounding users of MySQL. (I've heard rumors they even
> > give licensing discounts to companies that will let their names be
> > used like that.)
> >
> > There is no comparable effort happening on the Postgres side.
> > There are plenty of impressive users of PG too, but they don't have
> > to talk about it.
>
> I still find impressing that Google uses MySQL... I can guess why,

What makes you so sure Google don't use PostgreSQL *as well*?

(hint: we don't force them to tell you about it...)

//Magnus

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[singh.gurjeet]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:06 PM, rrahul <rahul.rathi@...> wrote:

Thanks to all you wonderful people out their. I don't know if its your love
for Postgres or nepothism that makes it look far superior than mysql.

I wouldn't comment on that, but having read so much about MySQL in Postgres' lists, I sure have a disliking for MySQL, so much so that I haven't bothered even downloading and installing it even once!!!

Does anyone know of threads in MySQL lists/forums where they run a propaganda against Postgres or if they downplay us? That would be an interesting read!

But why does the client list dosen't tell that?
I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel......
What about Postgres the list is not that impressive.

I would suggest trying to find the customer list of Postgres derivatives, such as EnterpriseDB and Greenplum. There are some pretty big names there too. This, in some ways, recognizes customers' faith in Postgres.

Best regards,

--
gurjeet[.singh]@EnterpriseDB.com
singh.gurjeet@{ gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo }.com

EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

17° 29' 34.37"N, 78° 30' 59.76"E - Hyderabad *
18° 32' 57.25"N, 73° 56' 25.42"E - Pune
37° 47' 19.72"N, 122° 24' 1.69" W - San Francisco

http://gurjeet.frihost.net

Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device