-4

I have two problems with MySQL and started wondering if I should switch to Postgres

1 - Incremental backups are only available on the paid version of MySQL.

2 - It seems that mySQL has performance issues in some cases

So, are these two problems solved with Postgres?

Community
  • 1
  • 1
Ricardo Acras
  • 35,784
  • 16
  • 71
  • 112
  • Sometimes I really don't understand SO rules (or some people here) My question was direct. I have two problems and am asking if Postgre will solve it. What the heck is wrong with this??? – Ricardo Acras Jul 09 '13 at 13:05
  • Postgres has more advantages than just those two: http://stackoverflow.com/a/8182996/330315 But I do agree with fvu: every DBMS has bugs (some more, some less) and I'm sure you will always find at least one statement (if not more) where the optimizer gets it completely wrong. Besides: it's not "Postgre". It's either Postgres or PostgreSQL (pronounced postgres-ql). Postgres is a perfectly accetable "abbreviation" of the name (see here: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_PostgreSQL.3F_How_is_it_pronounced.3F_What_is_Postgres.3F). –  Jul 09 '13 at 13:09
  • It is obvious for me that there are more issues to be concerned. But to start thinking on switching databases I had that starting point and I asked only this. If the new db did not get my current issues solved it is not worth trying at all. I did not ask if should or shouldn't change. I only asked two aspects of the whole issue and I thought it was clear enough. About the name Postgre, thank you for clarifying, I've been mistakingly calling it Postgre for a while... – Ricardo Acras Jul 09 '13 at 20:02
  • How come this is an opinion based question? I asked about two aspects of Postgres very clearly. – Ricardo Acras Jul 09 '13 at 20:05
  • Incremental backups with the open version of MySQL can be done with a few tweaks in the configuration and simple shell scripts: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/backup-policy.html. – Rômulo Ceccon Jul 09 '13 at 20:28

1 Answers1

4
  1. I guess that PostgreSQL's continuous archiving can be considered a valid alternative
  2. for every dbms you can find plenty anecdotal evidence of situations they cannot handle properly/quickly, or only with massive help in the form of cunning query rewrites, data remodelling and whatnot. Just look around here on SO or on any of the thousands of db-centered sites all over the net to see what I mean.

In short, where 1 can be a solid argument to justify a switch (and especially from a business point of view), I wouldn't be overly concerned about 2. And if your db is slow because your datamodel is not performance friendly, you'll just carry over slowness.

fvu
  • 32,488
  • 6
  • 61
  • 79
  • Thank you for your answer. Actualy I'm pretty sure that my datamodel is performance friendly. The query wich I am having problems is very straight forward and has only simple joins and is covered by indexes. In fact if I run the very same query that my view runs it is executed in less than 1/20 of the time. That made me beleieve that the problem is with the way mysql handles views. – Ricardo Acras Jul 09 '13 at 12:51
  • 1
    @RicardoAcras I'm not arguing with that, quite the contrary. Just don't believe there are silver bullets aka databases with no performance issues whatsoever. Ideally you would want to run at least the critical parts of your application under (simulated) high-load conditions on PostgreSQL and evaluate the performance. – fvu Jul 09 '13 at 13:01
  • agreed. Will do it for sure. Thank you again. – Ricardo Acras Jul 09 '13 at 13:02