Ylan, Totally agreed. I set up a Teamcity CI server recently and the GUI config or bust nature of it reminded me very much of the crazy WinBatch code I once wrote to automate MS SQL’s required semi-daily server reboot.
Rob — Sent from Mailbox On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Ylan Segal <[email protected]> wrote: > Guy, > It’s been a while since I have used MS SQL, but one of the things the > resonated the most from that article was about the GUI nature of it: It > really does seem that the only way to work with it is to use a graphical > remote connection to a Windows Server and point and click your way through. > That made it really hard to check setting or compare them between servers. A > plain config file is so much simpler. Anyway... > I’m looking forward to seeing your next presentation. > -- > Ylan Segal > [email protected] >> On Nov 21, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Guyren Howe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I’ve not worked with it nearly as much as MySQL or Postgres. But seems I can >> now be almost as harsh about MS SQL Server as I have been about MySQL: >> >> <http://www.pg-versus-ms.com/> >> >> That just leaves Oracle. I *have* worked a goodly amount with Oracle. Oracle >> is significantly better than SQL Server and MySQL. And I can even imagine >> situations where I would choose Oracle over Postgres. Were I to describe >> such a situation, I would begin with something like “well, I suppose if I >> was working for a bank…”. >> >> For everyone else, Postgres is clearly, I will even say outrageously, >> obviously, and dramatically, the best database available today. >> >> On related news, I’m currently working on some tests of Postgres’ special >> indexes for the next meeting. The GIN index has just received a dramatic >> improvement in Postgres 9.4 (both smaller and faster). I’m planning on >> presenting results giving an indication about when you might want to use GIN >> or GIST indexes. For those who saw my last presentation about indexes, >> compound GIN and GIST indexes let the database use any of the columns in the >> index for a search. They are rather more complex than BTree for the database >> to maintain, so this involves a tradeoff between insert and query time that >> ought to be explored in more depth. >> >> I’m planning on running some benchmarks that will give us at least a rough >> idea of how GIN and GIST indexes compare for insert and query time against >> BTree indexes. If you use Postgres, you should come hear what I find out. >> > -- > -- > SD Ruby mailing list > [email protected] > http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SD > Ruby" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- SD Ruby mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SD Ruby" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
