2nd dimension: ecosystem of the tool (developers/libraries/support/etc)
3rd dimension: developer's ability to use the tool (time to learn, current ability, etc)
If you think on factors going from 0 to 10, MySql could be [4, 7, 8] and Postgres could be [7, 7, 4] for that developer.
Of course the 3rd factor depends on the developer (and on the time available), for example I know Go is very powerful, but I wouldn't use it, unless the available options for me are not good enough for a given problem (so the time to learn compensates for the loss that using other technologies would incur)
I think another important dimension is the suitability of the tool to the technical culture and composition of the organization. For example statically typed java-ish languages tend to be more attractive if you have many disconnected groups contributing to a code base, and if I'm being cynical, overall less average skilled programmers just hacking out features. Whereas a small team of top-tier developers are more well positioned to leverage the benefits of more fancy tools and languages.
1st dimension: power of the tool
2nd dimension: ecosystem of the tool (developers/libraries/support/etc)
3rd dimension: developer's ability to use the tool (time to learn, current ability, etc)
If you think on factors going from 0 to 10, MySql could be [4, 7, 8] and Postgres could be [7, 7, 4] for that developer.
Of course the 3rd factor depends on the developer (and on the time available), for example I know Go is very powerful, but I wouldn't use it, unless the available options for me are not good enough for a given problem (so the time to learn compensates for the loss that using other technologies would incur)