MySQL vs. PostgreSQL

The PostgreSQL community recently had PgWest, which is a conference where users and developers gathered together to learn from each other. It was held in San Francisco, near where I work and so I submitted a paper to present. The paper was accepted and I spent a day at the conference. I would have liked to stay for all three days but had a project back at the office that required my full attention.

One of the sessions that I missed was on the differences between MySQL and PostgreSQL. Both are database management systems and are freely available. MySQL was controlled by a single company and then was purchased by Sun, which was then purchased by Oracle. PostgreSQL is a community project with developers all over the world. I would have liked to attend the presentation as I use both MySQL and PostgreSQL for my job.

Looking at all of the online traffic generated by the presentation, I really wish I had been there. I get the feeling that it was a bit like watching a cat thrown into a room full of hungry dogs (MySQL being the cat and all of the PostgreSQL fans being the hungry dogs). I have to sit back and laugh at all of the contention the one presentation has caused. It reminds me of the movie, "Monty Python's Life of Brian." The movie takes place in Jerusalem during the time of Christ. There are several Jewish groups opposing the Roman occupation. One is the "People's Front of Judea" and the other is the "Judean People's Front." Instead of working together to rid themselves of the Romans, they fight against each other.

PostgreSQL and MySQL are both open source databases and can be used without any licensing costs. They may have different architectures and methods of development, but they allow users to run complex database management systems without the burden of heavy fees required to run Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, or IBM DB2. Maybe someday the two camps will stop arguing long enough to figure out they are on the same side and stop trying to steal each other's users.

Then again MySQL is now owned by Oracle . . . who charges large sums of money to use their "other" database product . . .