| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
The Aberdeen Group looks at free databases
The Aberdeen Group looks at free databases
Posted Mar 31, 2004 18:41 UTC (Wed) by dlang (subscriber, #313)Parent article: The Aberdeen Group looks at free databases
why do I get the idea that they got most of their postgres questions answered by MySQL people?
for example they list a drawback of postgres being that it lacks row-level locking, but ignore the fact that no locking at all is needed for updates while MySQL only recently changed to 'only' require row-level locking for updates.
(Log in to post comments)
The Aberdeen Group looks at free databases
Posted Apr 1, 2004 17:05 UTC (Thu) by cajal (guest, #4167) [Link]
I agree entirely. I'm not sure where Aberdeen got their PostgreSQL info, but most of it wrong. They certainly didn't contact any of the PostgreSQL developers; many of them were quite... "amused" to read some of Aberdeen's claims.
For instance, Aberdeen claims that PG doesn't have deadlock detection (it does), doesn't support row-level locking (it does via SELECT FOR UPDATE, but you normally don't need it, thanks to multiversioning), and doesn't have updateable views (just use a RULE to get the update). The report also claims that "the next version of PostgreSQL may come as late as two years from now." I have no idea where that came from; if you look at the release notes, you'll see that PG has never taken more than a year to release a new version.