| 3. |
Built-in asynch replication
|
|
|
|
|
33 votes
0 comments
|
| 5. |
Multiple storage engines to choose from
|
|
|
|
|
12 votes
0 comments
|
| 9. |
Better capability to ignore integrity constraints
|
|
|
|
|
1 votes
0 comments
|
|
|
| 1. |
Much better vertical scalability
|
|
|
|
|
64 votes
0 comments
|
| 3. |
Focuses on a single, good storage engine
|
|
|
|
|
39 votes
1 comment
|
| 4. |
Friendlier license (BSD vs GPL-or-pay-MySQL)
|
|
|
|
|
27 votes
0 comments
|
| 5. |
Project is more independent of commercial interests
|
|
|
|
|
25 votes
0 comments
|
| 6. |
psql console better than mysql console
|
|
|
|
|
22 votes
1 comment
|
| 7. |
scalability and performance unmatched by mysql
|
|
|
|
|
19 votes
0 comments
|
| 8. |
Is well designed from start
|
|
|
|
|
19 votes
0 comments
|
| 9. |
Works with the SQL standards and when it extends it, does so sanely.
|
|
|
|
|
18 votes
0 comments
|
| 10. |
Very similar to Oracle but in a good way
|
|
|
|
|
17 votes
0 comments
|
| 11. |
can write stored procedures in multiple languages
|
|
|
|
|
14 votes
0 comments
|
| 13. |
MySQL:s license is too anal, thats why we picked Postgres in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
10 votes
0 comments
|
| 15. |
Independent of Commercial Compromises
|
|
|
|
|
6 votes
1 comment
|
| 18. |
Users are generally pretty clueful
|
|
|
|
|
5 votes
0 comments
|
| 19. |
can add an index and write to table concurrently
|
|
|
|
|
5 votes
0 comments
|
| 21. |
Pluggable PLs (Programming Languages)
|
|
|
|
|
3 votes
0 comments
|
|
d