What does PostgreSQL miss?

Since PostgreSQL offers Sub-query, Trigger, Procedures which MySQL did not offer, I suppose PostgreSQL should be enable to be Open Source Version Oracle.

However, it does not but MySQL does in fact. What does PostgreSQL miss?

I don't really understand what you are saying.

Are you saying MySQL is the Open Source replacement for Oracle. If so can you please excuse me for 5 minutes while I roll on the floor in a fit of laughter.

PostgreSQL does compete with Oracle and does hold its own quite nicely. It is not as powerful as Oracle but it is getting close and is the closest to it that is available in the Open Source community.

IMHO it still misses:
1. Stable native windows version (planned for next version)
2. Replication
3. OLAP/Multidimensional
4. Clustering

You see that those (with the exception of OLAP) are really high end features not widely used, so PostgreSQL is really comparable to Oracle for most of users.

DBExperts have already got a native version of PostgreSQL. And IIRC they do replication aswell.

http://www.dbexperts.net/postgresql

Thank pabloj for listing its weakness.

For functionality, I really think PostgreSQL will be an Open Source replacement for Oracle. But for the market voice, MySQL sounds larger.

Don't think I am a MySQL supporter. I just want to know what features MySQL has over PostgreSQL, say performance.

If sticking on Linux platform, why do I still use MySQL instead of PostgreSQL? Will PostgreSQL improve to get the market back?

Let me state it clear:
I've never chosen something using market share as the only parameter.

So, if you think that:
Views, triggers, stored procedures, subqueries (the last available in MySQL alpha) will be required for your project go for PostgreSQL.
I also suspect that PostgreSQL's scalability is better than MySQL's (it runs the .org domain name registry).

If you are offering web hosting than php+mysql is very good (performance and ease of use) or any other application that doesn't rely heavily on db.
Notice that NASA switched from Oracle to MySQL for a MAILINGLIST (see http://www.mysql.com/news/article-51.html), which is right, no need to pay that much for such a simple application.
If your customer feels more confortable with MySQL, and this meets your technical requirement, then go with it.

Well, I don't want to follow the market but sometimes it does affect.

But I just know a feature of MySQL: Fast Fast Fast. And PHP has an integrated interface with MySQL. and nothing else.

So I just want to know why people chooses MySQL instead of PostgreSQL. Is it only because Fast or Good integration with PHP? I heard Google moving to MySQL too. Why not PostgreSQL?

I am used to using Oracle. In my last project, one of modules (1 out of 20) needs subquery feature but I used MySQL at that time and did not know this handicap. As a result, I am still fixing it. What should I do?

If the performance difference between MySQL and PostgreSQL is not too much, I should persue Boss to use PostgreSQL. What do you think?

MySQL is fast on simple queries and with MyISAM tables (no transactions and fk), the speed decreases a lot on very complex queries (multiple table joins) and with referential integrity (InnoDB and BDB tables).
Php has integrated interfaces for many db's including PostgreSQL.
I think that people prefers MySQL for:
1. Ease of use.
2. "Ignorance", meaning that they don't even know views, triggers and stored procedures.
3. Probably Google prefers MySQL because it has native clustering abilities, a good fulltext indexing and a simple db structure, even if the data is huge.
4. Docs, I think that MySQL's online docs are very good, and there is a lot of forums to ask for help (you see that here MySQL forum has a lot of activity, but usually questions asked are not very advanced).
5. Administration tools, a lot more and generally very good

If your application will be about accounting or anyway a complex db structure, and you have some experience with PostgreSQL I would use it.

Yes, you are right.

I experienced developing Accounting and Inventory applications in MySQL. It was very very difficult and I found no point to use MySQL, although my boss forced me.

Well, we'd better contribute PostgreSQL development more so that we can have a better SQL than MySQL in the Open Source World.

PostgreSQL Replication (sort of) from gBorg. It's not complete, but it's well under way and you can play around with it if you want. I thought there was also a commercial replication solution available, but I forget now and I couldn't find it in the 2 minutes I bothered looking...

MySQL has deeper market penetration for a few reasons. First, it's "easier to use", because it's not a complete RDBMS. You found that out when you tried to create the accounting app. Had you had subqueries and views (not to mention one of my favorite "features": Triggers) you probably would have had a much easier time writing the logic for it. MySQL doesn't have those things though, so it's geared toward low-end development so people see it as "easy" to use (because they aren't... nay.. CAN'T do anything 'hard' with it anyway).

Second, the POSTGRES project took a little hiatus for awhile before it was revived as PostgreSQL a few years ago. A lot of the early development of the PostgreSQL system was quiet and unobtrusive. They did a lot of tweaking and whatnot behind the scenes. It wasn't until recently that PostgreSQL really started an advocacy kick, and, IMHO at least, it's had a questionable impact on the Open Source DBMS world.

Unfortunately, as you discovered, "leader" type people are often easily influenced by fads not facts. Sometimes you can beat sense into their skulls, but don't count on it. I always go this route when some numbskull insists

"As your business grows, you'll be best served to have a system in place that grows with it. PostgreSQL is free, MySQL is free, moving from one to the other isn't. PostgreSQL will scale better than MySQL which will save you buttloads of cash in the long run".

Needless to say... it's worded a little more tactfully and business-like than that...

I think that MySQL got our point, they announced an agreement with SAP to distribute and integrate SAPDB, which has the features that MySQL would take years to add (see http://www.mysql.com/news/article-351.html)

Maybe they are market leaders because they are smart enough not to reinvent the wheel?

Wow, MySQL has escaped from its disadvantage so quickly. If MySQL can really enhance its ability and features, it will be a good news.

SAP MySQL (let me call this as the future version MySQL), PostgreSQL (you need to strike more) and Firebird SQL (strike too for the market) will compete vigorously and this competition will benefit users eventually.

Not so fast, they will redistribute SAPDB in 3d quarter of this year, the future is open

I think it's great that the MySQL group is working to improve their product, don't me wrong. I'm not out there to decry MySQL's use and pump up PostgreSQL as if it were the only option (I kind of have a soft spot for Firebird DB as well). I think having three competing, technically competent DBMSs can only be a good thing because it'll drive them to become better.

However, I'm not to keen on MySQL's approach to improvement. I don't think it's wise to just kind of toss things into the code this late in the game as if it were an afterthought (read: I think the InnoDB engine is a stupid thing to have as an afterthought and is how it should've been done to begin with). They're just sort of "plugging in" things that should've been an integral part of the system from the start.

And, actually, MySQL isn't who pgsql needs to wallop with marketing. It's nice to kind of poke it and say "look at me - I'm bigger than you" to get them on the ball, but w