Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says... > err... i think you misunderstood... I'm was looking for a link to show the > mozilla folks saying they would stop using the firebird name. I've never > heard such a thing, while I have heard the opposite, and the info you site > above only seems to verify that mozilla plans to use firebird in the future. Well, I follow the Firebird lists (and am currently writing an app that uses the embedded dll - yummy - no horrible installation scripts! - any chance of putting that on the PostgreSQL todo list?) and on those lists there are senior Firebird people who have posted quotes from emails which they say (and I have no reason to disbelieve them) are from senior Mozilla people to the effect that they will stop using the Firebird moniker. There are also emails complaining about the sloth - not to say deliberate pussy-footing around - the the Mozilla crowd have been up to in not honouring their written committment to remove the Firebird part of the name for their browser. There are those in the Firebird (db) crowd who are on the verge of suing, so it could get nasty yet! Paul... > Robert Treat -- plinehan y_a_h_o_o and d_o_t com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post. "XML avoids the fundamental question of what we should do, by focusing entirely on how we should do it." quote from http://www.metatorial.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Actually, I've gotta admit I don't take my own advice. I deployed a PHP company directory for a small company (to small to make the MS Exchange mistake) and it was deployed on MySQL, then about 2 weeks after completion I moved it over to OpenLDAP :) C'est la Vie :) T. Hehe, yea those infamous Access "Apps". Even though I use PG for everything, I know that MySQL is probably fine for most web site servering up what I would call "lightweight dynamic content". My experience has taught me that most organizations will grow fairly quickly to the point of needing something on the level with PG. So, you can do it now "properly" (with PG or something similar) or migrate it later (MySQL, Access, et al). If someone really wanted MySQL for something "light", I'm pretty sure I would not have a problem putting someone on that project. What I would not do is commit a consultant to something that has all the markings of being a bear to deploy and maintain. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Tino Wildenhain (Thursday 01 January 2004 11:33) > > I'm just saying that it would be nice to include both CLI and GUI > > interfaces, not to mention things like ODBC, as an alternative to the > > "minimalist" download. > > No. NO! Definitively not. I really dont want GUI interfaces on a > database server. We are not on Windows here where all servers > better reside on the desktop... Obviously, and I did not mean to imply that the standalone distribution should go away. I just think that it would be nice for an all-in-one package to exist, for users just wanting to try out PostgreSQL on their desktop. Of course, if your server didn't have X11 compiled (I don't see why it would), then the graphical components would not (because they could not) be compiled :). Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) http://rivyn.livejournal.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Hi Casey, Casey Allen Shobe wrote: Alex Satrapa (Sunday 28 December 2003 22:16) Just convince your distribution's My what? I don't use no stinkin' distribution :). postgresql package maintainer That would be postgresql.org, I know not of binary packages. "suggests/recommends" portion of the package management metadata. Tar does not provide such metadata, and a suggestion is hardly the same as an inclusion. I'm just saying that it would be nice to include both CLI and GUI interfaces, not to mention things like ODBC, as an alternative to the "minimalist" download. No. NO! Definitively not. I really dont want GUI interfaces on a database server. We are not on Windows here where all servers better reside on the desktop... But you could provide a wget script for the configure file to fetch all sources one would need to install to his postgres server if desireable. Regards Tino ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Tony wrote: > > I have been a consultant with Microsoft Operating Systems for sometime > now, but never sat any of their exams, because my experience with > Network Operating Systems speaks for itself. I've never had my > abilities questioned by an employer (only by employment agency staff > that don't know their subject and insist that no one can be put forward > for this contract without at least an MCP) not even by Microsoft > when I did work for them. > > Perhaps I should have clarified - in referring to Microsoft certifications, I was referring to the MCAD and MCSD certifications. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
This is exactly why I got my Cisco CCNA qualification, not because I wanted to work with Cisco Routing equipment (because quite frankly I can't think of a duller subject) but because I could show potential employers/clients a well rounded skill set. This means I can appreciate implications broader than just my specialisation, and see the bigger picture, and also if pushed and there was no network engineer around I can get a router up and working again in an emergency situation (doesn't mean it'd be secure, just that it would route packets in the right general direction) Many people quoted the CCIE as the ultimate in qualifications. Cisco touted the CCIE course/exam as the best on the market, their claim was that there was no way to gain the qualification without real world experience and without knowing the subject in reality (i.e. you can't learn this just by absorbing a book) and had a big practicle exam you had to travel to Cisco for to complete the final stages, where they would lock you in a room with a bunch of kit and tell you to design and trouble shoot various networks. I don't know many CCIEs but at least 3 that I know all got their CCIE without ever laying hands on much more than a 4ft high stack of Sybex exam guides. I'm with Joshua on this one. I have been a consultant with Microsoft Operating Systems for sometime now, but never sat any of their exams, because my experience with Network Operating Systems speaks for itself. I've never had my abilities questioned by an employer (only by employment agency staff that don't know their subject and insist that no one can be put forward for this contract without at least an MCP) not even by Microsoft when I did work for them. 0.02 cents T. Joshua D. Drake wrote: I think what a lot of people forget is that certifications are meant to be a baseline. They are meant to allow an employer to say, "Hey this person at least has some idea of what they are doing." ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > Have you undertaken the MySQL certifications? If not, how can you say > > that they are not worthwhile? > > > > I think what a lot of people forget is that certifications are meant > to be a baseline. They are meant to allow an employer to say, > "Hey this person at least has some idea of what they are doing." > > Also, specifically pertaining to many people on this list, certification > is pointless. For them. There is a point in your professional life > where a certification becomes "So What" and your resume should be > enough. > > Frankly, if someone like Tom Lane came to me and said, "Hey I have 20 > years experience with databases and I am a PostgreSQL core developer." > My response would not be, "Do you have any certs?" and I would > question the sanity, validity, and intelligence of any person who did. > He has the experience and resume to back up his worth. > > I think that we realise that someone like Tom Lane, or Bruce Momjian, would not need to worry about having to have things like certification, but, it must be remembered that not everyone is a recognised PostgreSQL guru, and, people are at different levels, regarding something like PostgreSQL. And, certification is subjective. I had not heard of some things, like Bernoulli's theorem, until I attended university, and my wife's younger brother has covered that with one of his primary school classes that he teaches. And, whereas in 1978, to become a laboratory assistant in New Zealand, required a Bachelor of Science, and, to become a laboratory assistant in Western Australia, required having passed a universities entrance exam at secondary school, or a technical college certificate, which was at about the same level as the universities entrance examination. That was due to different countries having different levels of difficulty in obtaining employment, and thus, employers being able to be selective to different degrees (no pun intended), due to differing employment market pressures. But, in both countries, having passed a universities entrance examination, meant the same, or similar, level of achievement had been completed, and, having completed a university degree, had the similar meaning. And, as you said in your first paragraph above, certifications are meant to be a baseline, and they give an employer good reason to believe that a person has some idea of what the person is doing, at the level of the certification. I know that people who have been in computing, from before computing degrees were dreamed of, probably do not need formal qualifications. However, as with software engineering, and computer science, degree courses and certifications, apart from completion being able to show that a person has achieved a particular standard, there is also the important aspect, that a person has been trained to do something (relatively) properly, in most cases. So, whilst people on the list, in discussing prospective content of trating courses and/or tutorials, have said that issues like normalisation, are too generic, and have no place in PostgreSQL training, if the formal, standardised, structured, training and certification that I have suggested, is implemented, and, it includes generic database stuff, like normalisation, then a prospective employer or hirer of a contractor, who may know something about databases, may be given the knowledge that a prospective employee, is unlikely to use postgreSQL to generate what is not much more than a flat-file database, when a database should be normalised. It goes to the issue of having an idea of the value of formal training and certification. In that, I mean a prospective employer, having an idea of the value. A good example of the need for formalised, standardised, structured, training and certification, is a man that I met several year sgo, who was the head of the maths and computing teaching department at one of the universities, here in Western Australia. He told me that he didn't believe in documenting programs. His area was computing, and he taught computer programming. Given the complexity of some computer programming languages, and the possible obscurity of some code, I hope that I never encounter the code of such a programmer. My wife has encountered undocumented databases, that she has had to modify, or, to migrate to another DBMS. Much time can be wasted through bad practices. To quote from a book that we have just acquired; "Troubleshooting SQL", by Forrest Houlette, 2001, (the book, whilst being SQL-Server-oriented, including material relating to SQL in general), in the chapter "Using Best Practices"; "Recently I had to perform maintenance on a program that was written by a guy who believed that you should have to struggle with code to understand it. He used one-character variable names, and as a consequence the cost of having a consultant come in to do maintenance on
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
> Have you undertaken the MySQL certifications? If not, how can you say > that they are not worthwhile? > I think what a lot of people forget is that certifications are meant to be a baseline. They are meant to allow an employer to say, "Hey this person at least has some idea of what they are doing." Also, specifically pertaining to many people on this list, certification is pointless. For them. There is a point in your professional life where a certification becomes "So What" and your resume should be enough. Frankly, if someone like Tom Lane came to me and said, "Hey I have 20 years experience with databases and I am a PostgreSQL core developer." My response would not be, "Do you have any certs?" and I would question the sanity, validity, and intelligence of any person who did. He has the experience and resume to back up his worth. > If you cannot see the advantages of formalised, structured, standardised > training and certification, then I assume that you have no > qualifications, and did not graduate from secondary school? Well this was just plain snobbish. There are benefits to secondary school but they do not pertain to each individual and it has been proven time and time again that secondary school (college) can actually hamper the minds, creativity and capabilities for a person to grown. Bill Gates, and Michael Dell come to mind. The above of course is not par for the course for everyone. Some people need to be taught, some can teach themselves, some can only teach themselves within one arena of talent, some are complete morons... it depends on the individual. > Such things > are generally implemented at secondary school and further education, and > Informix and Oracle and Microsoft have such things, from my > understanding. As someone who has passed the MS exams, you don't need them, they are joke. The A+ was more difficult than the memorize the side bars and select letter "C" testing that Microsoft offers. I can not speak to Informix or Oracle however. > Instead of going out of your way to ridicule MySQL, perhaps you should > instead, try to do what I have done; have a look at what MySQL has, > that PostgreSQL has not, and, consider how it could benefit PostgreSQL. > Unless, of course, you want for PostgreSQL to not be taken seriously, > and instead, to be similarly an object of ridicule, as its community > would appear unable to achieve anything other than ridiculing others. > I agree with you 100% here. MySQL has a lot of stuff over PostgreSQL, much of it is "perceived" benefit over actual benefit but perception is what it is all about in todays world. > Oh, and, on that basis, remember the Beta video format? It was supposed > to be far better than VHS. But, it disappeared because VHS had greater > marketing. And, OS/2 was supposed to be far superior to MS Windows, > but, similarly, the same fate befell that, and, similarly, with IBM > PC-DOS and MS-DOS. > Agreed. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Nigel J. Andrews wrote: > Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:12:05 + (GMT) > From: Nigel J. Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > > > Just to poke fun at MySQl: > > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Bret Busby wrote: > > ... > > It is alright for people in this thread, to say "But they are MySQL, and > > MySQL is not as powerful as PostgreSQL, so who cares what advantages > > there are in MySQL", but MySQL appears to be more mature, as it has > > things like standardised, formalised, structured, training courses and > > secrtifications, and, the "Teach Yourself MySQL in 21 Days" book, and > > that series of books has set exercises, etc, to aid the learning, > > ... > > I thought MySQL was supposed to be easy to install, admin and use, how come it > takes 21 days to learn it and needs formalised training courses? > > > -- > Nigel > So, in the absence of those benefits for PostgreSQL, all you can do is poke fun at a better offering? Have you read and worked through the book, as either a person who has not worked with MySQL or the Perl DBI, or the API's in the book, or as a person with no experience with databases? If not, how then can you say it should take more time or less time? Have you undertaken the MySQL certifications? If not, how can you say that they are not worthwhile? "Easy" is in the eye of the beholder, and, is affected by the depth into which a person goes. If you cannot see the advantages of formalised, structured, standardised training and certification, then I assume that you have no qualifications, and did not graduate from secondary school? Such things are generally implemented at secondary school and further education, and Informix and Oracle and Microsoft have such things, from my understanding. And, isn't passing secondary school level exams, easy? If not, perhaps, you should try it again, and again, until you can confidently pass. Some people find secondary school exams easy, others do not. Depending on where you were educated, most countries have had formalised, standardised, structured, education and certification at secopndary school, and, some kind of accreditation for technical college education and for university education. May be not, where you were educated. Instead of going out of your way to ridicule MySQL, perhaps you should instead, try to do what I have done; have a look at what MySQL has, that PostgreSQL has not, and, consider how it could benefit PostgreSQL. Unless, of course, you want for PostgreSQL to not be taken seriously, and instead, to be similarly an object of ridicule, as its community would appear unable to achieve anything other than ridiculing others. It is like some sections in the Linux community, who apparently feel that Linux has nothing to offer, and should not be taken serioulsy, so they devote their time and effort, to ridiculing Microsoft, instead of promoting the benefits of Linux, as they clearly believe that ridiculing Microsoft, can apparently hide their belief that Linux is not worthwhile in itself and that Linux has nothing to offer. If some want to similarly regard PostgreSQL, as being so worthless, that the best way to conceal its worthlessness, is to ridicule MySQL, then that is unfortunate, as I believe that PostgreSQL is supposed to be better than MySQL, it just happens to lack some of the maturity of MySQL, as indicated in my paragraph, quoted above. Oh, and, on that basis, remember the Beta video format? It was supposed to be far better than VHS. But, it disappeared because VHS had greater marketing. And, OS/2 was supposed to be far superior to MS Windows, but, similarly, the same fate befell that, and, similarly, with IBM PC-DOS and MS-DOS. As it was mentioned that PostgreSQL would be around, long after MySQL was dead and gone, perhaps not - perhaps, it may be the other way around. It all depends on whether the PostgreSQL community is prepared to learn from others - remember that quote? "Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to reapeat it". It would be unfortunate, for PostgreSQL to disappear, like the Beta video format, due to the PostgreSQL community not being willing to learn from others. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On Tuesday 30 December 2003 06:50, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote:
> I don't know that particular book myself but the book MySQL written by Paul
> DuBois took me much less then 21 days :-) I have yet to find a simular book
> about PostgreSQL..
>
uh... I would have to think that Korry Douglas's book titled "PostgreSQL" from
the same publisher must be somewhat similar.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0735712573/qid=1072831905/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-2846574-6863256
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 23:41:22 -, John Sidney-Woollett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, sometimes these questions will be postgres specific, and this is > where the docs are too light. > > An example is an update statement using values from a correlated subquery. > Here's example code in pgsql: > > update PHOTO.WPImage > set WPImageStateID = 3, > Width = WPImageHeader.Width, > Height = WPImageHeader.Height, > ContentType = WPImageHeader.ContentType, > ContentLength = WPImageHeader.ContentLength > where WPImage.WDResourceID = WPImageHeader.WDResourceID > and WPImage.WDResourceID = pResourceID > and WPImage.WPSizeTypeID = 0; > > In Oracle this might be written: > > update PHOTO.WPImage i > set WPImageStateID = 3, > (Width, Height, ContentType, ContentLength) = ( > select Width, Height, ContentType, ContentLength > from PHOTO.WPImageHeader ih > where ih.WDResourceID = i.WDResourceID) > where WPImage.WDResourceID = pResourceID > and WPImage.WPSizeTypeID = 0; > > You'll notice that the syntax is entirely different, and very relevant for > inclusion in the docs for each database's update statement. The Postgres example uses a join instead of subselects. You could have used subselects in postgres, but because there is currently not a way to set more than one column at a time from one subselect, you would have to repeat the subselect 4 times. I am not convinced that this needs to be documented in the section on the update statement. This is something that would belong in an oracle to postgres conversion guide. > I've mentioned it before but here it is again, contrast this explanation > of the UPDATE command in postgres with Oracle's explanation. Which one > would explain how to make use of a correlated subquery without resorting > to more googling or the list? > > postgres: http://www.postgres.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-update.html > > Oracle: http://miami.int.gu.edu.au/dbs/7016/a85397/state27a.htm#2067717 > > My point is not so much that the docs are difficult for newbies (and they > probably are), but that they just lack sufficient meat which really ought > to be included. I still don't see that there needs to be a lot more added to the postgres update command documentation. The main thing missing is links to the syntax definitions for things like from list, condition and expression. Currently you just have to know that the syntax for from items and conditions is described with the select documentation and that expression syntax is covered in the value expressions chapters under sql syntax. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
--- Bret Busby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Jeff Eckermann wrote: > > > > > Isn't this what books are supposed to be for? i.e. > to > > fill in the gaps or provide the coverage, tips, > howtos > > etc. etc. that no-one really expects formal > > documentation to cover. There are quite a few > good > > books out there, including two accessible online, > with > > links from the www.postgresql.org page (that must > have > > been modesty on your part ;-) ). Bruce's book, > even > > referring to an outdated version of PostgreSQL, > still > > gives a pretty good introduction for an SQL newbie > in > > how to get started. > > > > We have plenty of good stuff already out there, > the > > issue here appears to be more one of presentation > and > > organization. > > > > > > But, do these things have set exercises, relevant to > the material, to > ensure the reader understands the material? > > It is one thing to present a worked example, but, > without getting a > student to perform an exercise "create a database > named supermarket, > with tables groceryline and socklevel and itemprice, > input 100 stock > lines of varying stock levels, and of varying > values, then create a > report of the total value of the stock, and a report > listing the stock > lines with an item value over $5.00, and the total > value of stock with > item prices over $5.00", to show whether the student > actually > understands what to do, and how to do it, so the > student can realise > whether the student needs to go back and cover the > material again, or > whether the student can move on. > > To give a person knowledge, increases the person's > memorised > information; to require the person to use the > knowledge, makes the > person learn, and increases the person's skills. > > That is why I have repeatedly referred to the need > for a "Teach Yourself > PostgreSQL in 21 Days" book, to have such exercises, > etc. > My post was more a response to the suggestion that the core docs should be expanded to encompass more "howto" stuff. You are right, there is a need for some self learning tool (speaking as someone who is almost entirely self taught on PostgreSQL and computing in general), and I am not aware of any existing book which addresses that need. A problem is that much of what a newbie needs to learn is not PostgreSQL specific, much of it comes down to generic SQL and RDBMS functionality. Should we try to replicate the existing masses of material on that? For example, I first learned SQL from the "SQL in 21 Days" book, which gave a good general introduction, almost all of it directly applicable to PostgreSQL. I even found the introduction to Oracle pl/sql to be valuable as a quick start on pl/pgsql. Maybe we need some more suggestions from people about what they would have liked to have had when they first got started with PostgreSQL, and get some ideas from that. I was happy with the existing resources, but I am not most people. __ Do you Yahoo!? Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003 http://search.yahoo.com/top2003 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
"Bret Busby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wrote: > On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote: > > In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near or > > long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists. Firebird > > is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to > > learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being as > > easy to use as PostgreSQL. > > > > > > I suggest that it is a bit premature, to suggest that MySQL will > disappear, and that PostgreSQL will still exist. > Ok, fair enough, and since it is GPL'd when it is no longer maintained, it will still exist ;-). One of the things that makes MySQL different than, say, Nautilus is the fact that you have client libs licensed under the GPL. Unless MySQL AB decides to change this, we will have a strong advantage, and I don't see this changing anytime soon. But I still think that MySQL is more likely to become non-viable than PostgreSQL... MySQL is not helping their case much (now that PHP will not enable MySQL by default anymore due to licensing issues). > Each does have its advantages, and, people develop things in parallel in > the two different systems. I have developed systems that support both. I understand what you mean. > > For example, on the perl-gedcom list, people have developed, in > parallel, genealogy database systems that they use, some using MySQL, > some using PostgreSQL. People have their preferences, as some still use > (or require to be used) MS Access, or Foxpro, or SQL-Server, or > Informix, etc. > > Does PostgreSQL yet allow the user or programmer, to determine where the > database will be stored? I think you mean DBA rather than user or programmer. Tablespaces are in the works and will allow finer tuning of database storage. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
At 20:00 30-12-2003 +0700, Chris Travers wrote: Personally I think that the docs are great (especially so with 7.4). Of course they are aimed at experienced admins, so it is easier to find things if you have a basic understanding of the RDBMS to start with. Of course things can always be improved, but I am opposed to adding cruft to the core documentation. Let's keep these things friendly towards experienced users so that we can WORK efficiently. IMO you can have both. How much would it hurt if there was a bit more information? Or a link to a related topic (as someone else suggested before). If I think about using a certain PHP function I might want to double check on the exact syntax or to look at the minimum version required. So I go to the PHP.net website and quickly look at it.. but a newcomer might spend quite some time on the same page.. The same could become true for the PostgreSQL docs I gues. Meaning I will read a bit longer on the same page then you. But only until I have assimilated the information.. All I would ask is a bit more information in the docs then found at present, add information where it currently stops without talking to much :-) I'm quite sure there are enough knowledgeable persons around to fill in the gaps found at present. But perhaps the interactive version of the docs might serve a great perpose here. B. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
From: "B. van Ouwerkerk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I still don't find it. I know you can do a varchar(255) but what is the > maximum PG will allow? Is there a maximum? > In short, how much can I put into the field before it breaks. It is not in the manual because in this case it probably doesn't matter. Check the FAQ. I believe that the maximum in a field in around 1GB. More text than I have to store ;-) This is more of a backend-related issue, and perhaps the limits could be handled in the introduction of the datatypes section. > I know a fair bit of SQL, just wanne know more about PG. Next year I will > start shopping at the nearest bookstore to see what they have on PG.. > Hopefully there is a book that compares to the book MySQL but then for PG.. Look for Bruce's book. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 09:23:21AM -0300, Martin Marques wrote: > El Mar 30 Dic 2003 02:49, Bret Busby escribió: > > And, if a person did not already have it installed and set up, would the > > person then have not been required to find elsewhere, how to do those? > > The question then is: "How difficult is it for a newbie to get PostgreSQL > started on a RedHat, Fedora, Debian, Mandrake,... Linux?" It may be very simple for you and me, but remember that nowadays the Linux distros come with "ident sameuser" authentication preconfigured. Someone, somewhere, has to tell them to create a database for themselves and how to do that, and that they need to use the postgres user to do it. It's not rocket science, but for a true newbie it's impossible (those guys rarely read manuals, remember). -- Alvaro Herrera () Oh, oh, las chicas galacianas, lo harán por las perlas, ¡Y las de Arrakis por el agua! Pero si buscas damas Que se consuman como llamas, ¡Prueba una hija de Caladan! (Gurney Halleck) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Personally I think that the docs are great (especially so with 7.4). Of course they are aimed at experienced admins, so it is easier to find things if you have a basic understanding of the RDBMS to start with. Of course things can always be improved, but I am opposed to adding cruft to the core documentation. Let's keep these things friendly towards experienced users so that we can WORK efficiently. However, Ericson does have a point, that the docs are NOT adequate if you are new to PostgreSQL and have only used MySQL or MS Access. There have been many ideas on how to resolve this issue, but I say that it should be resolved outside the core docs. The example of Python has been used, with an in-depth tutorial separate from the main docs. That way, an experienced user can discard the tutorial. I have argued elsewhere that a separate curriculum should be maintained, but I also understand that that will not happen overnight. My suggestion at the moment is to break the tutorial off so that it is not part of the main docs (I am not satisfied that it is large enough to really fill its purpose) and maintain it separately. I would then look at how to improve the tutorial. Hint out there to Ericson and others. The Reference Manual section of SQL commands is the part of the manual I use most. Procedural language sections also are used much around here :-) Best Wishes, Chris Travers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Why views, stored proc's etc. Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
I have previously made my viewpoint known regarding the need for training docs separate from the main docs. Regarding views: Think single point of maintenance. Here are a few examples: 1: You have a complex query which is run with different restrictions in the WHERE clause. You can set up a view to make maintenance easier, so you avoid duplication of effort. 2: You have an app that expects data to be presented in a different way. You can use a view to do this. You are right, that a view can do just what a select statement does, but particularly for extremely complex data manipulations, they are very helpful. Here is another example: Imagine that I have a complex database where I store historical changes to a hotel and reservations. I can then use a view to look at calculated vacancy rates. Then the vacancy rate view can be manipulated in various ways as if it were a table. Often the simple examples don't show as much as the examples that are much harder to do without a view. Stored Procs are much the same. The advantages of stored procs are: 1) For repeated queries based on other queries, less network latency buildup. 2) Stored procs can be used from any frontend, so if a function is generally useful you might want to put it there.
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
If you have no control over the running postmasters, then where the files are stored gives you no advantage at all either for backup or security. Backing up physical files while the postmaster running is asking for it; this is explained every three days or so on the lists. (that should be part of some consent form for using PG...'I acknowledge that copying physical files while the postmaster is running is ineffective, will get me in trouble, and promote both moral degradation and tooth decay. Please don't ask.'). As for security...the data cluster is created with 700 permissions, owned by the postgres super-user, and the postmaster will not even start up if the directory permissions are set otherwise. Personally, I wouldn't trust a sysad/dba at an ISP who gave me sufficient rights to create, say, Oracle tablespaces willy-nilly. That would fit your example of lazy and lax administration. (Apologies for using the 'O' word...) We're back into the mindset of an RDBMS being thought of as some sort of FoxPro-on-steroids thing. That is not what Postgres, Oracle, Sybase, etc. are. On Dec 30, 2003, at 5:40 AM, Bret Busby wrote: On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Tom Lane wrote: Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:07:23 -0500 From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Bret Busby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? Bret Busby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Does PostgreSQL yet allow the user or programmer, to determine where the database will be stored? You speak as though you think that would be a good idea. In my mind, "where the database is stored" is not a matter for users, nor for programmers, but for DBAs --- that is, the grunts who have to worry about backup policies and suchlike. This is not an issue that should be exposed at the SQL-command level, and therefore it does not concern either users or database programmers. That's not to say that we don't have work to do here. There's considerable interest in developing "tablespace" features to help the DBA manage his problems. But I absolutely will not buy into any suggestion that user foo's tables must be stored in user foo's home directory (even if I thought that Postgres user foo must correspond to a local Unix user foo ... which I don't ...) regards, tom lane This is where terminology becomes amusing. I meant the OS user, not the DBMS user, and I am not suggesting that DBMS users should be able to set where their tables are stored. All kinds of scenarios can arise; where the DBA and the developer are the same person, or, employed in the same department of the same company; where the DBA is employed by the company, and the developer is a contractor, or an employee of a contractor, and, as I previosuly mentioned, the scenario where an ISP, by hosting a web site with a database backend, has a database in the same holding area as is held all the databases of all of the ISP's clients who similarly have web sites with database backends. I would feel more confident about having a personal database "on the Internet"; a backend to my web site, if I knew that the database wasn't thrown into the same storage area as everyone of the ISP's other account holders, who also have the same DBMS database backends to their web sites. You never know what else is sharing the same storage area, or how safe your database is in there. It is a bit like having a cat; I would rather that the cat is with me, and that I know where it is, and what is happening with the cat, than having the cat locked away in a common room for all cats. Also, using that analogy, if I decide to move away with my cat, if it is with me, it is much simpler, and, cleaner, for me to simply pick up the cat and take it with me, than to try to find all of its bits, in a common room full of other cats. If I have a database system hosted by an ISP, and I try to move it to another ISP, surely, it would be simpler and cleaner, if I know that the database is stored in or under my home directory with the ISP, than having the database stored in a central repository with all of the other accounts holders' databases. There is also the issue of security, in the same context; I would feel much more secure, with a database hosted by an ISP, if I could control the privileges on the database directory, rather than allowing the ISP the control. Having been a user on various UNIX systems, I have seen some pretty lax security by systems administrators, and other users, and I am reminded of a senior university computing lecturer, who had the exam for an advanced computing unit, with such lax security that some students wandering through the system, found the exam, and, when they sat the exam, were surprisingly well prepared (no, I was not one of the students), resulting in all the students in the unit, having to re-sit the ex
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
El Mar 30 Dic 2003 04:07, B. van Ouwerkerk escribió: > >Does it say that there is a limit? Yes surely there is one, which most > > likely will depends on the Processor and OS you are running (64 bit or 32 > > bit), but anyway, such log varchars wouldn't be that recommended, and > > maybe the TEXT data type would be more suitable. > > If you are used to MySQL you're used to a maximum limit because of MySQL > will set a limit. > This kind of information is interesting if you're trying to understand > PostgreSQL. Well, maybe it's because I read some mails from Tom Lane discussing how optimal varchar(30) would be. :-) -- 09:25:01 up 34 days, 15:41, 2 users, load average: 0.05, 0.30, 0.38 - Martín Marqués| select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' Centro de Telematica | DBA, Programador, Administrador Universidad Nacional del Litoral - ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
El Mar 30 Dic 2003 02:49, Bret Busby escribió: > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Martin Marques wrote: > > > > At this point, the book makes the following assumptions: > > > > * You have installed POSTGRESQL. > > * You have a running POSTGRESQL server. > > * You are configured as a POSTGRESQL user. > > * You have a database called test. > > = > >= > > > > Now, Joshua was talking about getting PostgreSQL started, which Bruce > > assums you already know. > > > > Anyway, I must admit that if you have PG installed and running, which is > > very simple on normal Linux distributions, this book gives a huge boost > > to any newbie. > > And, if a person did not already have it installed and set up, would the > person then have not been required to find elsewhere, how to do those? The question then is: "How difficult is it for a newbie to get PostgreSQL started on a RedHat, Fedora, Debian, Mandrake,... Linux?" My answer is that it's not difficult at all, except if you are upgradeing, in which case, you are not a newbie any more. :-) -- 09:21:01 up 34 days, 15:37, 2 users, load average: 0.82, 0.52, 0.46 - Martín Marqués| select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' Centro de Telematica | DBA, Programador, Administrador Universidad Nacional del Litoral - ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
a contractor, or an employee of a contractor, and, as I previosuly mentioned, the scenario where an ISP, by hosting a web site with a database backend, has a database in the same holding area as is held all the databases of all of the ISP's clients who similarly have web sites with database backends. I have yet to see security issues from storing at the same place. There is also the issue of security, in the same context; I would feel much more secure, with a database hosted by an ISP, if I could control the privileges on the database directory, rather than allowing the ISP the control. An ISP can grant you that priv: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-grant.html Almost the same trick works with MySQL. As an example, on a personal basis, if I ever get the number of names in my genealogy system, up to around 10,000, I would really want, if using a database backend (which would, I believe, be required), to have control over where the data is stored, so that I can easily and reliably back it up, as such data can be unreplaceable, and can take decades to accumulate. If you're running MySQL look at something like mysqldump. When running PostgreSQL the information is here: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/backup.html Similarly, for commercial databases, now that DVD's are writable, backing up a largish database, using OS backing up, would be much better, and moreso, witth the data for a database, stored where it is wanted. Most running databases wouldn't like it if the backup is created with something like tar. IMO the best way is to use the tools provided with the product. You can create a dump with whatever tool provided and write that dump to CD-RW/DVD/whatever. I am not sure whether it can all be done with symbolic links, to place PostgreSQL databases where a (OS, not DBMS) user or developer or DBA wants them to be stored, but I suggest that provision should exist for a person to determine where the person's (as owner of the database) database file(s) exist, for security, backing up, etc. And then you hit the hard limit set by quota :-) Even if you think you can do it yourself you will have to persuade your ISP/admin/whatever to create a symbolic link (even if that would be possible and what you want). B. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: IMO there's no valid reason for MySQL bashing. I'm not going to defend either one because that kind of discussion leads to nowhere. How about pure entertainment? Or maybe because we don't have anything better to do on a Friday night because the one girl this year who actually said she would go out with us has stood us up? But were not bitter at all at that slut and she uses MySQL I just no it, I bet she's using it right now and laughing... LAUGHING at me... See it can be very therapeutic :) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
> secrtifications, and, the "Teach Yourself MySQL in 21 Days" book, and > that series of books has set exercises, etc, to aid the learning, > ... I thought MySQL was supposed to be easy to install, admin and use, how come it takes 21 days to learn it and needs formalised training courses? Perhaps you didn't understand it correctly? Perhaps because not everyone is intelligent enough to learn MySQL in less then 21 days? I don't know that particular book myself but the book MySQL written by Paul DuBois took me much less then 21 days :-) I have yet to find a simular book about PostgreSQL.. IMO there's no valid reason for MySQL bashing. I'm not going to defend either one because that kind of discussion leads to nowhere. B. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Just to poke fun at MySQl: On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Bret Busby wrote: > ... > It is alright for people in this thread, to say "But they are MySQL, and > MySQL is not as powerful as PostgreSQL, so who cares what advantages > there are in MySQL", but MySQL appears to be more mature, as it has > things like standardised, formalised, structured, training courses and > secrtifications, and, the "Teach Yourself MySQL in 21 Days" book, and > that series of books has set exercises, etc, to aid the learning, > ... I thought MySQL was supposed to be easy to install, admin and use, how come it takes 21 days to learn it and needs formalised training courses? -- Nigel ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:07:23 -0500 > From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Bret Busby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > > Bret Busby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Does PostgreSQL yet allow the user or programmer, to determine where the > > database will be stored? > > You speak as though you think that would be a good idea. > > In my mind, "where the database is stored" is not a matter for users, > nor for programmers, but for DBAs --- that is, the grunts who have to > worry about backup policies and suchlike. This is not an issue that > should be exposed at the SQL-command level, and therefore it does not > concern either users or database programmers. > > That's not to say that we don't have work to do here. There's > considerable interest in developing "tablespace" features to help the > DBA manage his problems. But I absolutely will not buy into any > suggestion that user foo's tables must be stored in user foo's home > directory (even if I thought that Postgres user foo must correspond > to a local Unix user foo ... which I don't ...) > > regards, tom lane > > This is where terminology becomes amusing. I meant the OS user, not the DBMS user, and I am not suggesting that DBMS users should be able to set where their tables are stored. All kinds of scenarios can arise; where the DBA and the developer are the same person, or, employed in the same department of the same company; where the DBA is employed by the company, and the developer is a contractor, or an employee of a contractor, and, as I previosuly mentioned, the scenario where an ISP, by hosting a web site with a database backend, has a database in the same holding area as is held all the databases of all of the ISP's clients who similarly have web sites with database backends. I would feel more confident about having a personal database "on the Internet"; a backend to my web site, if I knew that the database wasn't thrown into the same storage area as everyone of the ISP's other account holders, who also have the same DBMS database backends to their web sites. You never know what else is sharing the same storage area, or how safe your database is in there. It is a bit like having a cat; I would rather that the cat is with me, and that I know where it is, and what is happening with the cat, than having the cat locked away in a common room for all cats. Also, using that analogy, if I decide to move away with my cat, if it is with me, it is much simpler, and, cleaner, for me to simply pick up the cat and take it with me, than to try to find all of its bits, in a common room full of other cats. If I have a database system hosted by an ISP, and I try to move it to another ISP, surely, it would be simpler and cleaner, if I know that the database is stored in or under my home directory with the ISP, than having the database stored in a central repository with all of the other accounts holders' databases. There is also the issue of security, in the same context; I would feel much more secure, with a database hosted by an ISP, if I could control the privileges on the database directory, rather than allowing the ISP the control. Having been a user on various UNIX systems, I have seen some pretty lax security by systems administrators, and other users, and I am reminded of a senior university computing lecturer, who had the exam for an advanced computing unit, with such lax security that some students wandering through the system, found the exam, and, when they sat the exam, were surprisingly well prepared (no, I was not one of the students), resulting in all the students in the unit, having to re-sit the exam, and, other effects. A DBA should be able to control where a database is stored, and the level of security applicable to where the database is stored (privileges applicable to the directory, etc), and, as I have previously mentioned, it can occur that the DBA and the developer/programmer, are the same person. As an example, on a personal basis, if I ever get the number of names in my genealogy system, up to around 10,000, I would really want, if using a database backend (which would, I believe, be required), to have control over where the data is stored, so that I can easily and reliably back it up, as such data can be unreplaceable, and can take decades to accumulate. Similarly, for commercial databases, now that DVD's are writable, backing up a largish database, using OS backing up, would be much better, and moreso, witth the data for a database, stored where it is wanted. I am not sure whether it can all be done with symbolic links, to place Po
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On Tuesday 30 December 2003 02:28, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >How would this differ from the existing Tutorial? > > Well, for one it would tell the user how to start postgresql ;) Like this? http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/PostgresQL101 It is linked from front page of techdocs.postgresql.org under name of Postgresql 101. Actually overall, I am thinking of some 2 page per concept on similar line but I think that is what we are talking about, right? And besides the general impression I got from this thread is that people need illustrations lot more than the project seems to anticipate. Am I off-mark here? Shridhar ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
However, a language like PHP is very different from an enterprise DB, so our tutorial really doesn't help a newbie to databases understand how to USE PostgreSQL. In order to do this, it would need to cover a bunch of other topics as well, such as normalization, etc. The result would be something that you probably would not want to include in your standard reference manual. IMO normalization is something not specific for PostgreSQL. Although some individuals on this list seem to think otherwise, normalization is just as important when you're using MySQL. And even if you want to include that kind of information you could do this by linking to good information already online. There are several informative articles at both phpbuilder and devshed. But this would only be relevant if you're completely new to designing databases. B. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Does it say that there is a limit? Yes surely there is one, which most likely will depends on the Processor and OS you are running (64 bit or 32 bit), but anyway, such log varchars wouldn't be that recommended, and maybe the TEXT data type would be more suitable. If you are used to MySQL you're used to a maximum limit because of MySQL will set a limit. This kind of information is interesting if you're trying to understand PostgreSQL. FWIW, we already started to use text :-) B. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Bret Busby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Does PostgreSQL yet allow the user or programmer, to determine where the > database will be stored? You speak as though you think that would be a good idea. In my mind, "where the database is stored" is not a matter for users, nor for programmers, but for DBAs --- that is, the grunts who have to worry about backup policies and suchlike. This is not an issue that should be exposed at the SQL-command level, and therefore it does not concern either users or database programmers. That's not to say that we don't have work to do here. There's considerable interest in developing "tablespace" features to help the DBA manage his problems. But I absolutely will not buy into any suggestion that user foo's tables must be stored in user foo's home directory (even if I thought that Postgres user foo must correspond to a local Unix user foo ... which I don't ...) regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote: > Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:44:48 +0700 > From: Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > > > In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near or > long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists. Firebird > is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to > learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being as > easy to use as PostgreSQL. > > I suggest that it is a bit premature, to suggest that MySQL will disappear, and that PostgreSQL will still exist. Each does have its advantages, and, people develop things in parallel in the two different systems. For example, on the perl-gedcom list, people have developed, in parallel, genealogy database systems that they use, some using MySQL, some using PostgreSQL. People have their preferences, as some still use (or require to be used) MS Access, or Foxpro, or SQL-Server, or Informix, etc. Does PostgreSQL yet allow the user or programmer, to determine where the database will be stored? From memory, that has (or had) been a shortcoming of PodtgreSQL; there was no control as to where the database was stored, so that, for example, from my understanding, where an ISP allowed PostgreSQL usage for web sites, all of the PostgreSQL databases of all the ISP account holders, were stored in the same location, which was not under the account-holder's home directory; similarly, if I, on a LAN, create a database InventoryThing, as user frednerk, and, create a database AccountsThing, as user joebloggs, my understanding is that both databases will be stored in a central PostgreSQL repository, rather than under each user home directory. Thus, if the frednerk home directory and everything under it, is backed up by frednerk, it appears that InventoryThing is not backed up, and, similarly, with joebloggs and AccountsThing. Likewise with separate ISP accounts and any PostgreSQL databases that they have and use on their web sites. Clarification of whether my understanding is correct, would be appreciated. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Martin Marques wrote: > > I haven't read the latest review of Bruce's book, but I can recall that the > original version started with: > > In this chapter, you will learn how to connect to the database server and > issue simple commands to the POSTGRESQL server. > > At this point, the book makes the following assumptions: > > * You have installed POSTGRESQL. > * You have a running POSTGRESQL server. > * You are configured as a POSTGRESQL user. > * You have a database called test. > == > > Now, Joshua was talking about getting PostgreSQL started, which Bruce assums > you already know. > > Anyway, I must admit that if you have PG installed and running, which is very > simple on normal Linux distributions, this book gives a huge boost to any > newbie. > > And, if a person did not already have it installed and set up, would the person then have not been required to find elsewhere, how to do those? -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Jeff Eckermann wrote: > > Isn't this what books are supposed to be for? i.e. to > fill in the gaps or provide the coverage, tips, howtos > etc. etc. that no-one really expects formal > documentation to cover. There are quite a few good > books out there, including two accessible online, with > links from the www.postgresql.org page (that must have > been modesty on your part ;-) ). Bruce's book, even > referring to an outdated version of PostgreSQL, still > gives a pretty good introduction for an SQL newbie in > how to get started. > > We have plenty of good stuff already out there, the > issue here appears to be more one of presentation and > organization. > > But, do these things have set exercises, relevant to the material, to ensure the reader understands the material? It is one thing to present a worked example, but, without getting a student to perform an exercise "create a database named supermarket, with tables groceryline and socklevel and itemprice, input 100 stock lines of varying stock levels, and of varying values, then create a report of the total value of the stock, and a report listing the stock lines with an item value over $5.00, and the total value of stock with item prices over $5.00", to show whether the student actually understands what to do, and how to do it, so the student can realise whether the student needs to go back and cover the material again, or whether the student can move on. To give a person knowledge, increases the person's memorised information; to require the person to use the knowledge, makes the person learn, and increases the person's skills. That is why I have repeatedly referred to the need for a "Teach Yourself PostgreSQL in 21 Days" book, to have such exercises, etc. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
"Ericson Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wrote: > A documentation system like the one over at http://php.net, would be > fantastic for Postgresql. There could be lookups based on SQL commands, > Functions, and Sitewide Searches. This alone would go a long way to > expose PHP to "the masses". > Here is the problem, IMO. PHP has a very well developed documentation system which already closely parallels the PostgreSQL docs-- i.e. light tutorial, with more advanced manual sections, etc. In fact, the PostgreSQL documentation has more depth and is more comprehensive than the PHP manual (which is broad and shallow).. However, a language like PHP is very different from an enterprise DB, so our tutorial really doesn't help a newbie to databases understand how to USE PostgreSQL. In order to do this, it would need to cover a bunch of other topics as well, such as normalization, etc. The result would be something that you probably would not want to include in your standard reference manual. In other threads, I have been vocal on the need for a community-maintained PostgreSQL curriculum separate from the official PostgreSQL docs. I honestly think that this need would be well addressed by such a curriculum. The closest thing that is available at the moment, IMO, is Bruce Momjian's book. > In terms of using MySQL or Postgresql, lets all face it, most data > storage work could be easily and efficiently handled by text files, > since there needs to be just infrequent inserts and updates, and mostly > reads. The majority of interfaces exposed on the web follow this > paradigm, and include: > * Content management > * Catalogs > * Shopping cart stuff > * User management > True, until you need transactional control. Then text files break down very fast. > Yes, our powerful and easy to use PG can do all of that too, but SQLite, > Sleepycat DBM files and MySQL can do it as well. There are going to be > even more migrations for Oracle to MySQL than from Oracle to PG, because > so many of those Oracle installations were overkill in the first place. Perhaps, except that Oracle DBA's may find PostgreSQL more to their liking than MySQL. > Getting mindshare is a different problem. That requires PG to have a > full time effective press person. This press person would need to be in > touch with the press constantly to tell them things like: > * PG is a great back for windows clients using ODBC/MS Access/Excel > * PG is a "real" database comparable to Oracle > * PG costs nothing > * Free support is fabulous, and paid support is available > * Development is constant And this need is not filled by the Advocacy group how? If we were to do as you propose, who would pay that person? > In the end, I believe that PG needs to move into an organizational > structure so that its considerable assets can be fully realized, its > wonderful developers may be fully compensated, and commercial users (our > bread and butter), can have an official place to help sponsor features > of the system and so on. All this is more than a website. Someone posted > pictures of the PG booth at a show recently. It was nice, but there was > this one sad guy shrouded in darkness -- I felt depressed, because > that's how PG advocacy felt. I am not opposed to the idea of a non-profit organization similar to those that run Apache, XFree86, etc. I think it would take some work to do, and there may need to be some debate to iron out how this would work. But I am not sure that it is the only or even the best way. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Keith C. Perry wrote: > > Admittedly this deterrent won't stop a determined newbie from finding > > what they are after, but I'm sure there are some folk who would just > > assume that postgres is deficient in this area. Note some previous posts > > from others which demonstrates my point. > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-12/msg01358.php > > > > This gentleman finally found pgadmin III which solved his problem. But > > I'm sure he had to look for it. > > Short of the README file with the source release and reorganizing the web site. > I don't see what else could be done. I sincerely hope we're not going the path > of MS and trying to make things "idiot proof". PostgreSQL is robust complex > product and at a certain point I would think the powers that be would have to > say enough is enough as it relates to trying to make things easy. > > On a side note though, I did try to search of "php interface" (something I know > nothing about as it relates to PG) from the search link on the main website and > I had to cancel it because it never returned anything after several minutes. > That definitely would be frustrating to a new/prospective user. > > > I suggest that these issues, and, other issues on the thread, go to the points that I raised, in the thread about PostgreSQL training. >From my understanding, issues such as the PHP API, the Perl DBI, and other interfacing, for example, are covered in the "Teach Yourself MySQL In 21 Days" book. Similarly, also, things like pgaccess and pgadmin, could be included in a "Teach Yourself PostgreSQL in 21 Days" book, or equivalent, if someone would create one. And, I believe that such a book, if done well, would have a market This is why, as I previously said, what is needed, is a formalised, standardised, structured, PostgreSQL training course (or set of courses). It is alright for people in this thread, to say "But they are MySQL, and MySQL is not as powerful as PostgreSQL, so who cares what advantages there are in MySQL", but MySQL appears to be more mature, as it has things like standardised, formalised, structured, training courses and secrtifications, and, the "Teach Yourself MySQL in 21 Days" book, and that series of books has set exercises, etc, to aid the learning, and, as far as I am aware, PostgreSQL has no equivalent of those things. What PostgreSQL appears to have, is various books about it, and, resources scattered, those books and resources, from my understanding, are reference books and resources, rather than learning (Teach Yourself) resources, and various institutions offering training, in specific locations. But, it appears to have nothing like the MySQL worldwide standardised, formalised, structured, training and certification, and, the Teach Yourself MySQL in 21 Days" book. Perhaps, a good development would be to develop a PostgreSQL curriculum, with modules, starting with how to instal and configure PostgreSQL, database design techniques, using basic SQL, using more advanced features of SQL, API's, DBI's and ODBC and JDBC, optimising queries, etc, showing schema, etc, and performance tuning, and so on. Doing this on a top-down basis, could result in having published on the web, HTML pages and printable PDF files, of modules, that would take a person from little or no database knowledge, through to the level of PostgreSQL guru. There appears to have been resistance to these things, using the "build it and they will come" attitude - "PostgreSQL is a better DBMS, so people will flock to it", but, if it is made difficult for people to migrate, or to learn it, are they really likely to flock to PostgreSQL? This may appear like "flogging a dead horse", but, as I have said, I believe that this has been covered in the PostgreSQL training thread, and, again, I suggest that what PostgreSQL really needs, is formalised, standardised, structured, training and certification, and, the willingness of the PostgreSQL community to have these things, otherwise, as I said in the aforementioned thread, the PostgreSQL people are to be regarded as with the Perl community people - using the title JAPH - for the Perl community, "Just Another Perl Hacker", and, for the PostgreSQL community, "Just Another PostgreSQL Hacker". Sure, Perl is more powerful than PHP, but Perl practitioners tend to be regarded as sorcerers, and Perl programming, as a black art, and, PostgreSQL probably the same, in the absence of formalised, standardised, structured, training and certification, and, resources like the Teach Yourself MySQL in 21 Days" book, which things would equally make learning PostgreSQL, and, gaining formal recognition for PostgreSQL skills, through the certifications, available to the common people, rather than making PostgreSQL programming, a black art with a secret society atmosphere, with the policy "If you can find it, you might be able to learn it". It is useful, t
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 14:31:43 -0500, "Keith C. Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Shridhar, > > I tend to agree with you. I personally think the docs are very good and have > the techical depth warranted for a product like PostgreSQL. On the other hand > for the ad & m (advocacy and marketing) side of things. I'm betting some > clearly labelled tutorials/guide next to the disclaimer about the the main docs > be more of a reference would appease those who might be a bit green to a product > of PG breadth and depth (heck I still think I'm in the category sometimes). Even new users would be well served by skimming over the complete documentation. I don't think it is a good idea to suggest that they not read it. I think you would be better off providing references to learn about RDBMS' in general for people that don't have that background and pointing out some of the Postgres quirks that are likely to trip up people. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
How would this differ from the existing Tutorial? Well, for one it would tell the user how to start postgresql ;) Yes I know that it provides a link to chapter 14 but IMHO the tutorial should be inclusive. New users don't want to jump all over a 1000 page document to figure out how to just start the thing up and start tinkering with it. You shouldn't need anything else to get started. Thus it would be a self contained document. PostgreSQL for Dummies Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake regards, tom lane -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
The documentation needs to be opened up and interlinked a lot more. For instance, one of the things that makes the PHP site work well, is linking to related functions at the end of each function's description, eg: http://us2.php.net/manual/en/function.pg-fetch-all.php However, check our PG documentation page about the "CREATE SEQUENCE" command: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-createsequence.html That would be a prime page for linking to the sequence manupulation functions. So as a result of this omission, we get many basic sequence questions on the mailing list again and again. Now we would be forced over to Google, if the internal search engine was not working. Assume I am a newbie wanting to know how to get the last value for a sequence.. I would type "last inserted value" into the search engine... In this particular case, I got back no results. Lets face it, Postgresql is great, but the docs are not. PHP was easy to learn because of great function reference, interlinking (leads to feature discovery) and excellent user contributed tips which are edited. To this day, I still refer to my Postgresql Manual, because it is actually faster to find information that way instead of on the website. On the other hand, I never have to refer to a PHP dead tree manual. In my humble opinion, here's what the documentation needs to make the uptake of Postgresql better: * A separate page for every Postgresql function * Interlinking between related functions * Interlinking between SQL Commands pages and function pages * More examples of Pl/pgSQL functions * A custom search engine to address the above -- not just sitewide search * More encouragement of user posting to each manual page * Comprehensive migration section (Oracle => PG, MySQL =>PG), not just Pl/pgSQL examples! I dunno, maybe as users of Postgresql, we could pool together some money ($50 each as a new year present), and get the PHP documentation guys to help us out? They might be more inclined to, since they are dropping MySQL from inclusion in PHP. My first $50 is ready to go if someone organizes this stuff and gives me a Paypal email address to send funds to. Everyone here has a vested interest in Postgresql (heck, my job depends on it). Let's give the documentation writers an applause, but at this point, it really needs to move to the next level folks. Now let me get back to migrating to 7.4 :-) Warmest regards, Ericson Smith Tracking Specialist/DBA +---++ | http://www.did-it.com | "When I'm paid, I always | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | follow the job through.| | 516-255-0500 | You know that." -Angel Eyes| +---++ Dave Cramer wrote: Keith, Oh, there it is, in tiny print. Dave On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 15:03, Keith C. Perry wrote: Quoting Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Jeff, I agree; we have an apparent lack of awareness of many things. IMO this is more indicative of a lack of a unified presence than anything else. part of the project is on gborg, part of the project is on advocacy, etc. How would a newbie know to go look for advocacy.postgresql.org ?. Dave On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 10:18, Jeff Eckermann wrote: This has been an interesting thread, with lots of well considered contributions. The consensus seems to be "PostgreSQL is plenty good enough and more, we just need more people to know it, and an easier learning path". What bothers me a little here is an apparent lack of awareness of the work of the Advocacy Group. They have been organized for a little over one full release cycle, but have already begun to achieve some impressive things. The release of version 7.4 saw a well prepared press release, which was subsequently picked up by journalists and featured (often lifted word for word) in articles in a variety of IT industry publications around the world. The effect was to get our marketing material in front of the eyes of many readers, without them having to go looking for it at all. When did that happen before? I cite that as just one example of what can be achieved by an organized and co-ordinated approach, which is just what the Advocacy Group is working on. The scope for more development along these lines is huge, all that is needed is the passage of time, and hopefully more contributions from more people. I recommend to all those whose interest was caught by this thread to check out the pgsql-advocacy list, if you have not already done so, and think about what you might be able to add. In answer to the obvious question, I have been lurking on that list for a while, and intend to make a contribution where I feel fitted to do so. Maybe we need to invent some new solutions, but for advocacy at least, we already have one. --- Ericson Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A documentation system like the one over at http://php.net, would be fantastic for
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >This concerns me. This is the second time recently someone has said > something > >is NOT documented and it it turn out it is. > > > >So my question is (no offense to anyone) are the web sites not "clear" > enough to > >find information quickly or are people just being lax/lazy when they are > searching. > > > > > > > Well, at anything greater than 1024x768 the "docs" link on the main site > is near invisible. The font size is fine, but combined with the color scheme > and location, it can be hard to spot... Mainly, I think because the page > is so busy. Agreed- I was hoping some else would say that. > If you look at the front page the first thing you see is News which is fine, > but IMHO the first thing should be the nav bar comes before News but > News is big, bold print. > > Also searching the PostgreSQL docs is a useless venture. I just typed in > trigger and hit search 20 seconds later I am still waiting. I mentioned that earlier in this thread. > Why don't we just add Google search to the page? > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake That and it is possible to propose a new layout. Something that is somewhat consistant across the major sites (www,gborg,techdoc,advocacy)? And yes, I'd be will to do some work on that. > > > > > -- > Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC > Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. > +1-503-222-2783 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com > > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Quoting Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Monday 29 December 2003 12:47, Tom Lane wrote: > > Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > That is right. but that fact remains that postgresql documentation is > > > just sufficient. If you read the manual and follow it religously to > comma > > > and fullstop, it tells you everythings. But it certainly isn't a place > > > where you can glance over it and get hang of it. > > > > This is surely true, and I've not seen anyone denying it. The people > > Well, for newbies to postgresql, let's state this fact upfront and not make > them discover it..:-) > > > who are doing development are, um, not strong at documentation (I > > include myself here). What we need are some folks to step up and > > improve the documentation --- and then maintain it in the face of future > > changes. Any volunteers out there? This is an open-source project > > after all, and that means "scratch your own itch" among other things... > > If you ask me, let's not do that. Not at least on a grand scale. Isolated > areas are OK on case by case basis.. > > I regualrly use development build documentation from > developers.postgresql.org > and I have seen the documentation in source code. In my view, postgresql > developers do document it very clearly whenever required. > > If we dilute the documentation too much, that will make things simpler > initially but that will simply create a maintainance nightmare as one has to > > maintain much larger amount of documentation. > > And once you get used to precise style of postgresql documentation, going > back > to anything else is a pain. ( MSDN.. I scream at nights but I digress). > > IMO documentation of postgresql is fine overall. What we need to do is. > > 1. State upfront that this is not handholding. > > It will make lots of things easier and offload work of expanding documents > given limited human resources working on the project. A disclaimer is far > easier to maintain than a manual..:-) > > And it will prepare anybody for upcoming hardships..:-) > > 2. Document and reuse it. > > Personally I would like to see responses on general and oter such list as > URLs. If we answer it repeatedly, let's document it and point the people to > them. Let them dig around 3-4 URLs around it and they will have islands of > enlightenments. Over the period, these island will merge in a great > landscape..:-) > > Just a thought.. > > Shridhar > > P.S. If somebody thinks I can not imagine how a newbie feels, I will agree. > But looking back, dumbing down anything is not good in long term..an > experience that is > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Shridhar, I tend to agree with you. I personally think the docs are very good and have the techical depth warranted for a product like PostgreSQL. On the other hand for the ad & m (advocacy and marketing) side of things. I'm betting some clearly labelled tutorials/guide next to the disclaimer about the the main docs be more of a reference would appease those who might be a bit green to a product of PG breadth and depth (heck I still think I'm in the category sometimes). 'bout two weeks ago there was another thread where certificating/training et al were discussed and one of the things that I had mentioned was that in that regard, we should probably have more tutorial/guide based on real world scenarios available on techdocs. Although I don't think I qualified to write for the main docs, I definitely can contribute to the techdocs in the manner I just mentioned. Matter a fact, I finally finish my first one "Using PostgreSQL for Domino 6 RDBMS Backends". I'm doing the final read now so hopefully I can get it over to Robert for posting. Perhaps the "newer" folks on the list could tell us what type of guides they want to see. I'm sure someone has a wish list somewhere. -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Hello, How about just a "Getting Started with PostgreSQL" guide... Python is like this. They have the "real" documentation but they also have a introductory tutorial. We could have a brief document (100 pages or less) that talks about the basic concepts of PostgreSQL... Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Shridhar Daithankar wrote: On Monday 29 December 2003 12:47, Tom Lane wrote: Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: That is right. but that fact remains that postgresql documentation is just sufficient. If you read the manual and follow it religously to comma and fullstop, it tells you everythings. But it certainly isn't a place where you can glance over it and get hang of it. This is surely true, and I've not seen anyone denying it. The people Well, for newbies to postgresql, let's state this fact upfront and not make them discover it..:-) -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Jeff, I agree; we have an apparent lack of awareness of many things. IMO this is more indicative of a lack of a unified presence than anything else. part of the project is on gborg, part of the project is on advocacy, etc. How would a newbie know to go look for advocacy.postgresql.org ?. Dave On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 10:18, Jeff Eckermann wrote: > This has been an interesting thread, with lots of well > considered contributions. The consensus seems to be > "PostgreSQL is plenty good enough and more, we just > need more people to know it, and an easier learning > path". > > What bothers me a little here is an apparent lack of > awareness of the work of the Advocacy Group. They > have been organized for a little over one full release > cycle, but have already begun to achieve some > impressive things. The release of version 7.4 saw a > well prepared press release, which was subsequently > picked up by journalists and featured (often lifted > word for word) in articles in a variety of IT industry > publications around the world. The effect was to get > our marketing material in front of the eyes of many > readers, without them having to go looking for it at > all. When did that happen before? > > I cite that as just one example of what can be > achieved by an organized and co-ordinated approach, > which is just what the Advocacy Group is working on. > The scope for more development along these lines is > huge, all that is needed is the passage of time, and > hopefully more contributions from more people. I > recommend to all those whose interest was caught by > this thread to check out the pgsql-advocacy list, if > you have not already done so, and think about what you > might be able to add. In answer to the obvious > question, I have been lurking on that list for a > while, and intend to make a contribution where I feel > fitted to do so. > > Maybe we need to invent some new solutions, but for > advocacy at least, we already have one. > > --- Ericson Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A documentation system like the one over at > > http://php.net, would be > > fantastic for Postgresql. There could be lookups > > based on SQL commands, > > Functions, and Sitewide Searches. This alone would > > go a long way to > > expose PHP to "the masses". > > > > In terms of using MySQL or Postgresql, lets all face > > it, most data > > storage work could be easily and efficiently handled > > by text files, > > since there needs to be just infrequent inserts and > > updates, and mostly > > reads. The majority of interfaces exposed on the web > > follow this > > paradigm, and include: > > * Content management > > * Catalogs > > * Shopping cart stuff > > * User management > > > > Yes, our powerful and easy to use PG can do all of > > that too, but SQLite, > > Sleepycat DBM files and MySQL can do it as well. > > There are going to be > > even more migrations for Oracle to MySQL than from > > Oracle to PG, because > > so many of those Oracle installations were overkill > > in the first place. > > Our place is in that hoary back end that runs the > > world, the un-sexy > > part of any organization that no one outside of the > > Development team, or > > System Administrators know about. > > > > Getting mindshare is a different problem. That > > requires PG to have a > > full time effective press person. This press person > > would need to be in > > touch with the press constantly to tell them things > > like: > > * PG is a great back for windows clients using > > ODBC/MS Access/Excel > > * PG is a "real" database comparable to Oracle > > * PG costs nothing > > * Free support is fabulous, and paid support is > > available > > * Development is constant > > > > In the end, I believe that PG needs to move into an > > organizational > > structure so that its considerable assets can be > > fully realized, its > > wonderful developers may be fully compensated, and > > commercial users (our > > bread and butter), can have an official place to > > help sponsor features > > of the system and so on. All this is more than a > > website. Someone posted > > pictures of the PG booth at a show recently. It was > > nice, but there was > > this one sad guy shrouded in darkness -- I felt > > depressed, because > > that's how PG advocacy felt. > > > > Warm regards, > > Ericson Smith > > DBA/Developer > > > +---++ > > | http://www.did-it.com | "When I'm paid, I always > > | > > | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | follow the job through. > > | > > | 516-255-0500 | You know that." -Angel > > Eyes| > > > +---++ > > > > > > > > > > Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > > >>I'm in a similar situation. My app is currently > > PG-only (although I > > >>_might_ be able to get it work with Firebird > > eventually). Currently I have > > >>to sell Linux to prospective clients in addition > > to my app. A native >
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... I DO believe however that a decent introduction to > the more important concepts (Triggers, Fkeys, Stored Proc, Views) that > people from lesser systems (MySQL, Access) may not be familiar with. > What they do, how they help, and why they are generally a good thing. > This intro would probably fit either in the tutorial or in the User Guide. Many of these subjects already *are* covered in the Tutorial. Just looking in the 7.4 table of contents, I see 3. Advanced Features 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Views 3.3. Foreign Keys 3.4. Transactions 3.5. Inheritance 3.6. Conclusion The discussions are skimpy and could use fleshed out a little, no doubt. (Anyone who wants to contribute material is surely welcome to.) BTW, there is a separate mailing list pgsql-docs for those who want to work on documentation. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Chris Travers (Sunday 28 December 2003 20:56) > Also, here in Indonesia, most of these B&B's charge less than $30/night. > Purchasing a new system (often $700 or more) is the equivalent of 23 > room-nights (for a place which typically has fewer than 10 rooms). Used > PC's are out of the question because usually they have hardware issues, and > so the cost savings would be marginal. Hmm...good points that I had not considered...I'm used to being here in the US, where I can go buy a brand new low-end Celeron server for under $200. Not the greatest piece of hardware, but cheap :). Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) http://rivyn.livejournal.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
This has been an interesting thread, with lots of well
considered contributions. The consensus seems to be
"PostgreSQL is plenty good enough and more, we just
need more people to know it, and an easier learning
path".
What bothers me a little here is an apparent lack of
awareness of the work of the Advocacy Group. They
have been organized for a little over one full release
cycle, but have already begun to achieve some
impressive things. The release of version 7.4 saw a
well prepared press release, which was subsequently
picked up by journalists and featured (often lifted
word for word) in articles in a variety of IT industry
publications around the world. The effect was to get
our marketing material in front of the eyes of many
readers, without them having to go looking for it at
all. When did that happen before?
I cite that as just one example of what can be
achieved by an organized and co-ordinated approach,
which is just what the Advocacy Group is working on.
The scope for more development along these lines is
huge, all that is needed is the passage of time, and
hopefully more contributions from more people. I
recommend to all those whose interest was caught by
this thread to check out the pgsql-advocacy list, if
you have not already done so, and think about what you
might be able to add. In answer to the obvious
question, I have been lurking on that list for a
while, and intend to make a contribution where I feel
fitted to do so.
Maybe we need to invent some new solutions, but for
advocacy at least, we already have one.
--- Ericson Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A documentation system like the one over at
> http://php.net, would be
> fantastic for Postgresql. There could be lookups
> based on SQL commands,
> Functions, and Sitewide Searches. This alone would
> go a long way to
> expose PHP to "the masses".
>
> In terms of using MySQL or Postgresql, lets all face
> it, most data
> storage work could be easily and efficiently handled
> by text files,
> since there needs to be just infrequent inserts and
> updates, and mostly
> reads. The majority of interfaces exposed on the web
> follow this
> paradigm, and include:
> * Content management
> * Catalogs
> * Shopping cart stuff
> * User management
>
> Yes, our powerful and easy to use PG can do all of
> that too, but SQLite,
> Sleepycat DBM files and MySQL can do it as well.
> There are going to be
> even more migrations for Oracle to MySQL than from
> Oracle to PG, because
> so many of those Oracle installations were overkill
> in the first place.
> Our place is in that hoary back end that runs the
> world, the un-sexy
> part of any organization that no one outside of the
> Development team, or
> System Administrators know about.
>
> Getting mindshare is a different problem. That
> requires PG to have a
> full time effective press person. This press person
> would need to be in
> touch with the press constantly to tell them things
> like:
> * PG is a great back for windows clients using
> ODBC/MS Access/Excel
> * PG is a "real" database comparable to Oracle
> * PG costs nothing
> * Free support is fabulous, and paid support is
> available
> * Development is constant
>
> In the end, I believe that PG needs to move into an
> organizational
> structure so that its considerable assets can be
> fully realized, its
> wonderful developers may be fully compensated, and
> commercial users (our
> bread and butter), can have an official place to
> help sponsor features
> of the system and so on. All this is more than a
> website. Someone posted
> pictures of the PG booth at a show recently. It was
> nice, but there was
> this one sad guy shrouded in darkness -- I felt
> depressed, because
> that's how PG advocacy felt.
>
> Warm regards,
> Ericson Smith
> DBA/Developer
>
+---++
> | http://www.did-it.com | "When I'm paid, I always
> |
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | follow the job through.
> |
> | 516-255-0500 | You know that." -Angel
> Eyes|
>
+---++
>
>
>
>
> Karsten Hilbert wrote:
>
> >>I'm in a similar situation. My app is currently
> PG-only (although I
> >>_might_ be able to get it work with Firebird
> eventually). Currently I have
> >>to sell Linux to prospective clients in addition
> to my app. A native
> >>Windows version would make my life a bit easier.
> >>
> >>
> >Same here.
> >
> >Our "clients" use legacy medical office software
> that 99% runs
> >on Windows. We offer add-ons (tailored
> mini-versions of our
> >main application :-) and thus get OSS (Python,
> PostgreSQL,
> >wxWindows, sometimes Linux itself) into their
> offices and onto
> >their networks. Most of the time the main
> difficulty is to figure
> >out how to offer PostgreSQL in their environment
> (yes, we know
> >about CygWin).
> >
> >("clients" because we don't do business as in
> selling stuff)
> >
> >Karsten Hilbert, MD
> >
> >
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
A documentation system like the one over at http://php.net, would be
fantastic for Postgresql. There could be lookups based on SQL commands,
Functions, and Sitewide Searches. This alone would go a long way to
expose PHP to "the masses".
In terms of using MySQL or Postgresql, lets all face it, most data
storage work could be easily and efficiently handled by text files,
since there needs to be just infrequent inserts and updates, and mostly
reads. The majority of interfaces exposed on the web follow this
paradigm, and include:
* Content management
* Catalogs
* Shopping cart stuff
* User management
Yes, our powerful and easy to use PG can do all of that too, but SQLite,
Sleepycat DBM files and MySQL can do it as well. There are going to be
even more migrations for Oracle to MySQL than from Oracle to PG, because
so many of those Oracle installations were overkill in the first place.
Our place is in that hoary back end that runs the world, the un-sexy
part of any organization that no one outside of the Development team, or
System Administrators know about.
Getting mindshare is a different problem. That requires PG to have a
full time effective press person. This press person would need to be in
touch with the press constantly to tell them things like:
* PG is a great back for windows clients using ODBC/MS Access/Excel
* PG is a "real" database comparable to Oracle
* PG costs nothing
* Free support is fabulous, and paid support is available
* Development is constant
In the end, I believe that PG needs to move into an organizational
structure so that its considerable assets can be fully realized, its
wonderful developers may be fully compensated, and commercial users (our
bread and butter), can have an official place to help sponsor features
of the system and so on. All this is more than a website. Someone posted
pictures of the PG booth at a show recently. It was nice, but there was
this one sad guy shrouded in darkness -- I felt depressed, because
that's how PG advocacy felt.
Warm regards,
Ericson Smith
DBA/Developer
+---++
| http://www.did-it.com | "When I'm paid, I always |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | follow the job through.|
| 516-255-0500 | You know that." -Angel Eyes|
+---++
Karsten Hilbert wrote:
I'm in a similar situation. My app is currently PG-only (although I
_might_ be able to get it work with Firebird eventually). Currently I have
to sell Linux to prospective clients in addition to my app. A native
Windows version would make my life a bit easier.
Same here.
Our "clients" use legacy medical office software that 99% runs
on Windows. We offer add-ons (tailored mini-versions of our
main application :-) and thus get OSS (Python, PostgreSQL,
wxWindows, sometimes Linux itself) into their offices and onto
their networks. Most of the time the main difficulty is to figure
out how to offer PostgreSQL in their environment (yes, we know
about CygWin).
("clients" because we don't do business as in selling stuff)
Karsten Hilbert, MD
www.gnumed.org
begin:vcard
fn:Ericson Smith
n:Smith;Ericson
org:Did-it.com;Programming
adr:#304;;55 Maple Avenue;Rockville Center;NY;11570;USA
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Web Developer
tel;work:516-255-0500
tel;cell:646-483-3420
note:Nothing special!
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.did-it.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
> I'm in a similar situation. My app is currently PG-only (although I
> _might_ be able to get it work with Firebird eventually). Currently I have
> to sell Linux to prospective clients in addition to my app. A native
> Windows version would make my life a bit easier.
Same here.
Our "clients" use legacy medical office software that 99% runs
on Windows. We offer add-ons (tailored mini-versions of our
main application :-) and thus get OSS (Python, PostgreSQL,
wxWindows, sometimes Linux itself) into their offices and onto
their networks. Most of the time the main difficulty is to figure
out how to offer PostgreSQL in their environment (yes, we know
about CygWin).
("clients" because we don't do business as in selling stuff)
Karsten Hilbert, MD
www.gnumed.org
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Alex Satrapa (Sunday 28 December 2003 22:16) > Just convince your distribution's My what? I don't use no stinkin' distribution :). > postgresql package maintainer That would be postgresql.org, I know not of binary packages. > "suggests/recommends" portion of the package management metadata. Tar does not provide such metadata, and a suggestion is hardly the same as an inclusion. I'm just saying that it would be nice to include both CLI and GUI interfaces, not to mention things like ODBC, as an alternative to the "minimalist" download. I got a private reply suggesting putting together a "distribution" of PostgreSQL including extras, so that may be a possible route as well. Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) http://rivyn.livejournal.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Hi all; I am working on an outline for topics that I think should have detailed discussion and/or tutorial items. Unfortunately my laptop is in the shop (bad motherboard) but when it comes back, I will post it. I think that Shrindhar is right-- these things do not belong in the main documentation which should be complete, technical, and accessible. But instead, I think that we need a separate document which teaches someone how to use an enterprise RDBMS, and particularly PostgreSQL. Learning these topics piecemeal is not very helpful, IMO :-( I hope that the progression will be: Outline -> disjointed tutorials -> integrated mega-tutorial -> larger curriculum set. Best Wishes, Chris Travers - Original Message - From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > On Monday 29 December 2003 15:25, Tony wrote: > > By that logic then, we can probably ditch the PG Tutorial altogether and > > provide a quick ref card of PG commands and keywords, with a few pages > > on how PG is different should be plenty. > > > > The bisggest problem that I faced when moving to PG was the complete > > lack of any cetralised information source for this information. Sure > > there are tutorials on the web, first track them down, then convert > > their use to PG then collate them, then make some sense of it all. > > This is the kind of aloofness that I have mentioned previously, just > > because it doesn't belong, doesn't mean it's not needed, and it only > > needs to be written once. Although I know some of the concepts and I'm > > beginning to grock them, I'm still trying to collate enough to satisfy > > my needs. > > > > Assuming yo *do* want to grow the PG community and attract people from > > other systems, the easier the transition for them, the less likely they > > are to look elsewhere for something that appears easier. Easier > > doesn't always mean easier to use, sometimes it can mean easier to get > > to grips with. > > *Sigh*.. You just read my first remark which you could have bypassed but > anyways.. > > What do you think of offer I made? I was slightly disappointed to see that you > missed it.. > > I am not removing my original message. Please read and let me know what do you > think.. > > > > > Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > > >For one thing, these thing do not belong to postgresql documentation. > > > > > >But I don't believe there is shortage of material on these topics on web > > > and in print. > > > > > >However if you are refering to explaining these things, w.r.t. postgresql, > > > I would be more than happy to churn out some extremely basic tutorials. > > > > > >Can you tell us what all you need? Rephrasing, if you know these(and some > > >other) concpets by now, what all you missed while learning postgresql? > > > > > >It may sound like stupid question but unlearning things out of imagination > > > is not easy...:-) > > Shridhar > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > >http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html > > ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Apologies, try this link instead: http://miami.int.gu.edu.au/dbs/7016/a85397/state27a.htm#2067717 The previous one required you to be signed with technet - the one above should be viewable by all. John John Sidney-Woollett said: > I agree with most of this sentiment. Even knowing SQL and RDBMs reasonably > well, there is still a significant effort involved in moving from another > RDBMS (in my case Oracle) to postgres. > > The postgres docs provide much all the detail (in a very concise form). > The hard part is putting all the different pieces together to solve some > problem. In fact, this is where the postgres users list is so good, > because the support and feedback from it is excellent. > > Contrast this page from the docs (for the update statement), > http://www.postgres.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-update.html with > Oracle's (for 8.1.7) > http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/A87860_01/doc/server.817/a85397/state27a.htm#2067717 > > Some might feel that much of the information is redundant or bloat. I > disagree - you get a feel for what is possible as well as links to other > commands, subtopics, and concept explanations. > > Someone commented that maintaining docs (of this sort) would be too hard - > I disagree. Many of the commands are *mostly* implementation agnostic, and > the initial docs would require siginificant effort to build, but should > only require moderate maintenance as features are added or modified. > > Just my two cents (again). > > John Sidney-Woollett > > ps And yes, I would be willing to help once my current project is > complete... > > Tony said: >> By that logic then, we can probably ditch the PG Tutorial altogether and >> provide a quick ref card of PG commands and keywords, with a few pages >> on how PG is different should be plenty. >> >> The bisggest problem that I faced when moving to PG was the complete >> lack of any cetralised information source for this information. Sure >> there are tutorials on the web, first track them down, then convert >> their use to PG then collate them, then make some sense of it all. >> This is the kind of aloofness that I have mentioned previously, just >> because it doesn't belong, doesn't mean it's not needed, and it only >> needs to be written once. Although I know some of the concepts and I'm >> beginning to grock them, I'm still trying to collate enough to satisfy >> my needs. >> >> Assuming yo *do* want to grow the PG community and attract people from >> other systems, the easier the transition for them, the less likely they >> are to look elsewhere for something that appears easier. Easier >> doesn't always mean easier to use, sometimes it can mean easier to get >> to grips with. >> >> T. >> >> Shridhar Daithankar wrote: >> >>>For one thing, these thing do not belong to postgresql documentation. >>> >>>But I don't believe there is shortage of material on these topics on web >>> and >>>in print. >>> >>>However if you are refering to explaining these things, w.r.t. >>> postgresql, I >>>would be more than happy to churn out some extremely basic tutorials. >>> >>>Can you tell us what all you need? Rephrasing, if you know these(and >>> some >>>other) concpets by now, what all you missed while learning postgresql? >>> >>>It may sound like stupid question but unlearning things out of >>> imagination is >>>not easy...:-) >>> >>> Shridhar >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ---(end of broadcast)--- >> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >> > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
I agree with most of this sentiment. Even knowing SQL and RDBMs reasonably well, there is still a significant effort involved in moving from another RDBMS (in my case Oracle) to postgres. The postgres docs provide much all the detail (in a very concise form). The hard part is putting all the different pieces together to solve some problem. In fact, this is where the postgres users list is so good, because the support and feedback from it is excellent. Contrast this page from the docs (for the update statement), http://www.postgres.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-update.html with Oracle's (for 8.1.7) http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/A87860_01/doc/server.817/a85397/state27a.htm#2067717 Some might feel that much of the information is redundant or bloat. I disagree - you get a feel for what is possible as well as links to other commands, subtopics, and concept explanations. Someone commented that maintaining docs (of this sort) would be too hard - I disagree. Many of the commands are *mostly* implementation agnostic, and the initial docs would require siginificant effort to build, but should only require moderate maintenance as features are added or modified. Just my two cents (again). John Sidney-Woollett ps And yes, I would be willing to help once my current project is complete... Tony said: > By that logic then, we can probably ditch the PG Tutorial altogether and > provide a quick ref card of PG commands and keywords, with a few pages > on how PG is different should be plenty. > > The bisggest problem that I faced when moving to PG was the complete > lack of any cetralised information source for this information. Sure > there are tutorials on the web, first track them down, then convert > their use to PG then collate them, then make some sense of it all. > This is the kind of aloofness that I have mentioned previously, just > because it doesn't belong, doesn't mean it's not needed, and it only > needs to be written once. Although I know some of the concepts and I'm > beginning to grock them, I'm still trying to collate enough to satisfy > my needs. > > Assuming yo *do* want to grow the PG community and attract people from > other systems, the easier the transition for them, the less likely they > are to look elsewhere for something that appears easier. Easier > doesn't always mean easier to use, sometimes it can mean easier to get > to grips with. > > T. > > Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > >>For one thing, these thing do not belong to postgresql documentation. >> >>But I don't believe there is shortage of material on these topics on web >> and >>in print. >> >>However if you are refering to explaining these things, w.r.t. >> postgresql, I >>would be more than happy to churn out some extremely basic tutorials. >> >>Can you tell us what all you need? Rephrasing, if you know these(and some >>other) concpets by now, what all you missed while learning postgresql? >> >>It may sound like stupid question but unlearning things out of >> imagination is >>not easy...:-) >> >> Shridhar >> >> >> >> > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Alas, it's one of the biggest shortcomings of email. My apologies for grasping the wrong end of the stick. All of your points are valid, but there is always room for a larger user community, especially in one that is almost entirely voluntary. It's OK to be aloof and niche, Debian has done just fine by it, in very many ways it far superior to Mandrake, Redhat, and many many others (I use it myself on all of my servers) but it doesn't excel in terms of accessability to the novice or even intermediate Linux users. Visit the #debian channel, and most of the people there will help you a great deal until they get bored with your newbieness and start sighing and telling you to RTFM. There is always a hardcore of advanced users however who will always help as far as they can, as long as they are Debian related Q's (I don't think anyone would be interested in "How do I use ftp" type Q's), a very similar story is true of the perl community (nothing personal Randall). I see very many parallels in all the advanced OS software and there are elements of this in PostgreSQL community, whilst the PG people in general are not quite as aloof as the Debian crowd, there are definite undertones of "Hey, If you're not good enough to appreciate us, then Tough Poopie to you!" This was very much how the Linux community was seen for the longest time, fortunately due to some vary hard advocacy work by some very dedicated people and talent programmers working hard on accessibility issues, Linux itself is now (mostly) far more accessible to many more people. I never expected to see so many people talking about Linux on the desktop so soon. The main point I'm trying to hit, is this how PostgreSQL community chooses to be viewed, or do they want to become a little more warm and fuzzy and have journalists cooing over PG. Either choice is a double edged sword. Those who can RTFM nearly always will, the others will probably use MySQL instead and get spoonfed by a more accessible piece of software that also runs on Windows. I'm trying to provoke thought rather than conflict here. Where does PG community see its place in the big picture? Regards T. PostgreSQL, Putting the .org into your Organization. Casey Allen Shobe wrote: Tony (Sunday 28 December 2003 10:30) I think...you read my E-mail quite a bit differently than how I wrote it. Vertu sæll, ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
I was thinking more along the lines of a company that said "Hey, we've got a core app on MySQL which is running like a bag of bolts, can you come and troubleshoot it for us." A company quite rightly would get a little edgy with someone saying sorry guys, it's new DB time. You'd want to go and work with them and help them to move in the right direction. Keith C. Perry wrote: Quoting Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sadly a company will believe anything that a consultant they trust tells them. Otherwise there'd be little point in hiring a consultant to give them advice would there? There are different levels of trust and in addition sometimes consultants are used for feasibility studies- "how would you do this?" If you're telling me you've never been in a situation where a client called you in because they want to implement a project with certain products or other specification because they have "done the research and want to proceed this way" then I'm very glad to hear that. No matter how much you are trusted as a consultant or technical advisor you are still just a guide. That means it is possible for your client is "wander off the path". I remember in the not so long ago days when people wanted to run certain hardware or software because to not do so would give the perception that you were not up to par. Sometimes what is used has nothing to do with using the best product for the job. That seems to be a sub-text of this thread. Exactly!! I've been in a position where no matter how hard Linux has been rationalised as the right solution for a job, the management and board have been Windows Marketed, and refuse to go any other way. I've also been at companies where the entire global operation was a Novell shop looking at an upgrade bill well into the high 7 digits, when MS came along and said well give you the OSs for free if you migrate. You just can't factor in for situations like that. Although some companies, like one I have just worked for, have no technical in house ability at all and listened to a reputable consultant, who didn't necessarilly make the right decisions. The company certainly didn't have anyone within to checkup on the consultant with their own research. These tend to be smaller companies with smaller budgets, staff number in double digits with 7 figure turnovers, these smaller companies are typically my normal client. They've often been given advice which wasn't exactly long term advice. My name seems to be getting thrown around as a trouble shooter/fixer. I'd like the opportunity to get in on the ground floor of fresh projects, but sadly have not reached that reputable stage yet. It seems rather illogical that you'd refuse to work with a company that had been given potentially sub-standard advice, based on what appears to be a theological view? I'm sure the MySQL folks don't think they are sub-standard. A fair amount of my business is "clean up" so if someone said, "we have an app on MySQL that is not working for us" I would most definitely be interested. If someone said to me what DB do I use to build applications, I would say PG. If then someone says to me that "well we're a MySQL shop" then I would have to hear more because depending on what they want to do, I might not take on that project. There is nothing illogical or theological in that. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Apologies as that's not how I interpreted your email. My bad on that. Either that or you have more consulting work than you know what to do with, that you can afford to base business decisions on an ideological basis. This really doesn't make sense. Are you telling me you are going to accept any an all work regardless of competency and confidence in that product? Would you really build a financial application on MySQL? We both know that we all have a certain ideology (read: religion) when it comes to our trade. To be clear, I'm not saying anything against someone who would use MySQL for a financial app. I'm just saying that I would not (or at least try very hard not to) involve myself in that project or any other project where I thought there was a bad design or implementation. To a certian extend you're right although if I had something useful to offer to the project, I'd certainly want to be there when (inevitably) someone (MySQL) dropped the ball and make sure PG was right there to pick up the pieces. I certainly don't have a religion though, I always try to use the right tool for the job at hand. The bad thing about many advocates in the OS environment is that they have the Linux hammer, and everything they see tends to look like a nail. This is also true for MySQL and many other projects. When you are a smaller operation your reputation is going to weigh in a lot more than a larger company. I do not want my name to be tied to something sub-standard. If a consultant values his
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Quoting Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Chris Travers wrote: > > Regarding the importance of PostgreSQL on Windows. > > > > For example, I am developing a hotel reservation management application > > using Python and PostgreSQL (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openres). > This > > will only run on Linux and UNIX, so in order to get this to run on > Windows, > > I need to use either MySQL or Firebird. Or aI can require Cygwin. But > that > > is a bit over the top IMO, for a small hotel or B&B to consider, > especially > > because I want to run it if possible on existing equipment to keep > > implimentation costs down. > > Who cares about where the GUI must run? Chris and his client- > May you please explain me why the GUI must be on the same DB server? > After all is better have the user's hand far away from the datas. If its a small hotel or B&B I would think an addtional workstation might be cost prohibitive. Then again, that might simply be the way they want it. > > Regards > Gaetano Mendola > > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > >http://archives.postgresql.org > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Quoting Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sadly a company will believe anything that a consultant they trust tells > them. Otherwise there'd be little point in hiring a consultant to give > them advice would there? There are different levels of trust and in addition sometimes consultants are used for feasibility studies- "how would you do this?" If you're telling me you've never been in a situation where a client called you in because they want to implement a project with certain products or other specification because they have "done the research and want to proceed this way" then I'm very glad to hear that. No matter how much you are trusted as a consultant or technical advisor you are still just a guide. That means it is possible for your client is "wander off the path". I remember in the not so long ago days when people wanted to run certain hardware or software because to not do so would give the perception that you were not up to par. Sometimes what is used has nothing to do with using the best product for the job. That seems to be a sub-text of this thread. > It seems rather illogical that you'd refuse to work with a company that > had been given potentially sub-standard advice, based on what appears to > be a theological view? I'm sure the MySQL folks don't think they are sub-standard. A fair amount of my business is "clean up" so if someone said, "we have an app on MySQL that is not working for us" I would most definitely be interested. If someone said to me what DB do I use to build applications, I would say PG. If then someone says to me that "well we're a MySQL shop" then I would have to hear more because depending on what they want to do, I might not take on that project. There is nothing illogical or theological in that. > Either that or you have more consulting work than you know what to do > with, that you can afford to base business decisions on an ideological > basis. This really doesn't make sense. Are you telling me you are going to accept any an all work regardless of competency and confidence in that product? Would you really build a financial application on MySQL? We both know that we all have a certain ideology (read: religion) when it comes to our trade. To be clear, I'm not saying anything against someone who would use MySQL for a financial app. I'm just saying that I would not (or at least try very hard not to) involve myself in that project or any other project where I thought there was a bad design or implementation. When you are a smaller operation your reputation is going to weigh in a lot more than a larger company. I do not want my name to be tied to something sub-standard. If a consultant values his or her reputation I don't see how you can NOT consider what products you are willing to put your name on the line for. > If I chose not to work with companies that used Windows as servers > (because IMHO, Windows is not a good server environment) my house > would've been repossessed, and I'd have probably starved by now. > > T. 12 years ago calling myself a consultant one day meant putting in a netware 3.11 server for a bunch of PCs and MACs and pulling coax. Did I want to do that- I can't really say because at the time I had to eat. That for me is on the outer fringes of this thread. Few organzations are NOT using Windows somewhere, and an increasing number of organizations are starting understand OSS solutions. So both world are merging so it not about avoiding and one thing. Its about picking an choosing your battles. > > Keith C. Perry wrote: > > > The way I look at it is that I probably don't want to deal with a > >company that thinks that MySQL on windows is "good environment". > > > > > > > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Quoting Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sunday 28 December 2003 11:15, D. Dante Lorenso wrote: > > The only SQL customizations that MySQL has that I really miss in > PostgreSQL > > are the commands: > > > > SHOW DATABASES; > > \l > > > SHOW TABLES; > > \dt > > > DESC table; > > \d tablename > > > > > That was ubber simple to do in MySQL. To this day, I have trouble with > > that in PostgreSQL. I'm constantly doing: > > > > psql> \? > > psql> help; > > ERROR: syntax error at or near "help" at character 1 > > psql> \h > > ... > > * damnit, that's not it...* > > psql> \? > > psql> \d > > * ok, now which flag do I use for tables vs functions..etc?* > > \df for functions and \dt for tables. > > Problem is psql is unique though very powerful. I need to use oracle's > sql-plus on HP-UX at times(Otherwise I crawl back to TOAD) and I don't think > > it is nowhere near to psql. > > or may be I play with postgresql more than oracle..:-) anyways > > > I finally figure it out, I just end up forgetting again later. I still > > have no clue how I'd find the same data without using psql. In MySQL > > I can run those queries from PHP, PERL...etc. I know you can find that > > data in system tables in PostgreSQL, but I don't wanna muck around with > > all that. I just wanna do something as simple as MySQL. > > Well, actually I would say it is great way of learning postgresql internals. > > There is a switch -E to psql which shows you queries sent to server for each > > command you provide. > > Problem with mysql is the approach is easy to start with but adding those > command in your standard list of SQL commands falls out on standard > compliance and maintainability. > > Another post on this thread mentioned postgresql should run against oracle. > Sole reason postgresql v/s mysql debate should exist is to provide > comparision in feasibility study. The hurdles you mentioned are true but that > > are just part of bit steeper learning curve of a standard way of doing > things.. > > Shridhar This is what I don't get. Why do people thing learn PG is going to be like learning MySQL in the first place? Because its OSS?? I certainly hope not. This is apples to oranges. I read someone say the documentation was "light" too. I'm not sure what that meant but I looked for at the 3 inch doubled side binded of my 7.3.2 docs- admin,user &,programmer- its as big as my J2EE binder. Not very scientific I know :) Seriously though, when people indicate PG is "hard", I hear, "if it was easy everone would be doing it". -$0.02 > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: PGSQL 7.4 tips, was Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Chris Travers (Sunday 28 December 2003 01:24) > With 7.4, PostgreSQL implements the standard information_schema so that one > can essentially get all this information in a standard way with will > presumably not be brokent too much in future versions. Prior to this > release, you have to dig the information out of the system catelogs which > would periodically change. > > Here are some examples (see the docs on the information schema ;-) This rocks! Thank you for the information! > Another hint-- run psql -E to echo the queries to the screen, so that you > can see how the information is being requested from the system catalogs. This is what I've always relied on... > WARNING: Using the system catalogs is NOT supported across versions, as > they tend to change from time to time. Use the information_schema instead > wherever possible :-) And this is the problem I discovered the hard way ;-). Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) http://rivyn.livejournal.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
I've asked this before and I'll apologize now if there was a response but how does http://gborg.postgresql.org NOT fill this. Quoting Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi all; > > The problem with trying to maintain an image of unity is that PostgreSQL is > moving in a direction of being sort of like a kernel. In this sense, we > already are unified. But regarding new types, client libs, etc. then unity > is neither necessary nor desirable IMO. > > If that is something that some people see here as important, maybe they can > start their own PostgreSQL "distributions." Maybe we can link to them via > the PostgreSQL advocacy site :-) > > Best Wishes, > Chris Travers > > - Original Message - > From: "Dave Cramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Robert Treat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 5:31 AM > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > > > > Well, I'm not suggesting that we force them to do anything, just give > > the appearance of unity, this should be possible with tools available, > > no? > > > > Dave > > On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 16:57, Robert Treat wrote: > > > But your examples also lists things like interface libraries. For > > > postgresql to do that, we would have to pick specific interfaces > > > applications / libraries, then have them all centralize their > > > development/release process around the main distribution. If you can get > > > everyone to agree to this (and I recommend starting by picking the > > > official python interface), we can start down a unified path, but I > > > don't see it happening. > > > > > > Robert Treat > > > > > > On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 09:41, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > Regardless of the reasons, perception is reality. If we appear to be > > > > disheveled then we are. > > > > > > > > I would think that it should be possible to give the appearance of > unity > > > > without actually requiring a full time web-master? > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 12:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, > one > > > > > > doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as > > > > > > interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc. > > > > > > > > > > Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid webmaster > that > > > > > has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to > control > > > > > everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's > hard to > > > > > > > > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I > would > > > > > > > > expect it in the docs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like ... ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services > (http://www.hub.org) > > > > > > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy > ICQ: 7615664 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > > subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your > > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > > > > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Tony (Sunday 28 December 2003 10:30) > The native windows port is certainly useful for me when I was > developing for MySQL applications, I always ran a copy on my Windows > laptop which started as a service, and was most useful. I used to Rapid > Devel and prototype all of my DB apps this way. In your shoes, I would probably tote along a compact linux machine running PostgreSQL, and a crossover cable to connect it to the laptop. > You don't understand the mindset behind the *yapping* MySQL users > because you DO understand PostgreSQL, because you appear to judge other > people by your own standards, instead of saying to yourself "There but > for the Grace of PostgreSQL Go I" Heh, no. The complaints I have about MySQL users are those of *ignorant* MySQL users. I have a low tolerance of ignorance about *anything*. I would be just as annoyed to hear somebody giving false excuses about PostgreSQL to a MySQL user. > Try to understand that not everyone is blessed by your knowledge of PG, > or by your clarity of thought. It's easy to start throwing stones and > rocks at people, but I'm sure that we could all be criticised on our > choice of our software choices in one respect or another, since none of > us are beyond reproach, and we can't all be experts at everything. I'm not trying to throw stones at all. I'm just saying that there's a lot of effort involved in making a Windows port that could be better spent working on general improvements, and that it is not a market that I think PostgreSQL needs to tackle. MySQL may run on Windows, but how many people actually choose MySQL over Microsoft SQL or some other commercial database? Not many. > How can you expect someone to understand why Nested Select staments are > good, if they ndo ot necessarilly understand what they might be good > for. Forgive me for not clarifying...but I do explain exactly what I would use them for, and the people who give me responses *know* why they're useful, because they come up with a perfectly good alternative to use in MySQL (which works, but isn't compliant to any standard but their own). Discussions like this result from MySQL users trying to convert me to their platform, not the other way around. I'm a believer in "use whatever you want". If you're underinformed about your decision, that's your problem. Don't come forcing it on me ;-). > 1. They are blissfully ignorant of alternatives and don't know any better. IMHO, these sorts of people don't need to be running PostgreSQL. If they've got something they're happy with, more power to them. If they want to take the blinders off and investigate alternatives, there's plenty of information out there. > 2. Don't have the ability to be productive with the alternatives or don't > have time to learn them (some people need to just use computers without > making them their lives) Then they oughtn't be using the alternatives. These sorts of people should use what they're used to. Why try to convert them to PostgreSQL from MySQL if they're happy with it and resistant to change and learning? > 3. Use laptops/PCs provided by a work environment and must use Windows/MySQL > because of Tools, Programs, Applications and don't have the option to > change. And again, if their software is dictated by management and management has given them MySQL, how is porting PostgreSQL to Windows going to help at all? If anything, these three examples sound like reasons not to bother porting, rather than encouragement to. > Zealotry is not good in any form, whether it's pro or anti MySQL, PG, > Windows or whatever. Shouting about how another religion is bad doesn't > make your point of view sound any less fanatical. I agree completely. You'll note that I haven't said anything bad about MySQL or Windows, even though I choose not to use either based on my own opinions. What I have said is that porting PostgreSQL to Windows is an unwise time investment, that open-source programs should focus on availability for open-source platforms, and that people don't often run open-source databases on Windows anyways (much more common is to see Access or Microsoft SQL). I have stated the reasons *I* find PostgreSQL to be a better alternative to MySQL, since that's the nature of this thread. I have *not* told you to go and switch to it. I think...you read my E-mail quite a bit differently than how I wrote it. Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) http://rivyn.livejournal.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On 28/12/2003 14:44 Tony wrote: [snip] This really rattled some peoples cages and I ended up defending PG against some really ill thought out attacks. Like: MySQL User: But can PG deal with really complicated joins. Me: In many cases the extra functionality of PG avoids the problems where really complicated joins would be needed in MySQL MySQL User: But MySQL is fast, PG is not so fast. Me: With PG you can move much of the functionality INTO the database using stored procedures, these stored procedures will run faster than interpreted PHP, therefore taking the load away from the webserver. MySQL User: But my Apache/MySQL can handle squillions of hits/queries etc, PG probably couldn't. Do you know any sites that have a lot of traffic that use PG. Me: U... try the .org registry, I'm sure they have a reasonable traffic load. See http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20001112.php3. Its a bit out of data wrt both dbs (MySQL 3.23.26 and PostgreSQL 7.1) but hopefully it will help dispel the FUD which MySQL AB have been spreading and living off for years. Also check the archives for this list and the performance list. And of course, the MySQL gotchas at http://sql-info.de/mysql is a must-read. MySQL User: What project made you move to PG from MySQL Me: The confusing licensing conditions when I wanted to write a commercial app based on MySQL. RedHat seem to be sufficently uneasy about MySQLs licensing to not ship MySQL 4.x with Fedora. Instead they ship 3.23.58 whilst shipping PostgreSQL 7.3.4 :) For a commercial app, the issue of data integrity is paramount (hopefully it would be a non-commercial app too!) and I, for one, would not be happy to let my professional reputation be hostage to MySQL's gotchas. YMMV. This completely killed all traffic on the channel for a minute or two, while the cogs and gears whirred while people tried to Grock the concept of OSS MySQL costing money to use in an application. After this lengthy defense and answering many questions without the slightest hesitation from me (and I'm new to PG), it made me realise why I was thinking about a PostgreSQL for MySQL users paper. Careful what you say - some people might think you're volunteering ;) -- Paul Thomas +--+-+ | Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller Business | | Computer Consultants | http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk | +--+-+ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Sadly a company will believe anything that a consultant they trust tells them. Otherwise there'd be little point in hiring a consultant to give them advice would there? It seems rather illogical that you'd refuse to work with a company that had been given potentially sub-standard advice, based on what appears to be a theological view? Either that or you have more consulting work than you know what to do with, that you can afford to base business decisions on an ideological basis. If I chose not to work with companies that used Windows as servers (because IMHO, Windows is not a good server environment) my house would've been repossessed, and I'd have probably starved by now. T. Keith C. Perry wrote: The way I look at it is that I probably don't want to deal with a company that thinks that MySQL on windows is "good environment".
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
The native
windows port is certainly useful for me when I was developing for
MySQL applications, I always ran a copy on my Windows laptop which
started as a service, and was most useful. I used to Rapid Devel and
prototype all of my DB apps this way.
Whilst I can (and do) run PG on my
laptop, it not nearly as straight forward, and when wanting to share my
work with others at a conference, trying to explain to them that they
need to install Cygwin and IPC stuff and then download PG then compile
it, etc, etc. They usually lose interest quickly.
When people want to try/play/prototype, installing Unix (many companies
still don't have spare, non-essential unix/linux boxen kicking around
to play with.
You don't understand the mindset behind the *yapping* MySQL users
because you DO understand PostgreSQL, because you appear to judge other
people by your own standards, instead of saying to yourself "There but
for the Grace of PostgreSQL Go I"
Try to understand that not everyone is blessed by your knowledge of PG,
or by your clarity of thought. It's easy to start throwing stones and
rocks at people, but I'm sure that we could all be criticised on our
choice of our software choices in one respect or another, since none
of us are beyond reproach, and we can't all be experts at everything.
The only reason that I'm making these points is that a few weeks ago I
thought the world was flat too, but a few people on this list took time
to explain to me with fact based points that the world was in fact
spherical and PG was a good thing.
How can you expect someone to understand why Nested Select staments are
good, if they ndo ot necessarilly understand what they might be good
for. In my experience, more than one time when investigating PG I had
a list of features MySQL lacked blurted at me without even considering
whether I understood what was being said. It may as well have been
Charlie Brown's Teacher talking to me ("whah whah, whah whah")
Remember Windows/MySQL users are Windows users usually for three
reasons: 1. They are blissfully ignorant of alternatives and don't
know any better. 2. Don't have the ability to be productive with the
alternatives, or don't have time to learn them (some people need to
just use computers without making them their lives) 3. Use laptops/PCs
provided by a work environment and must use Windows/MySQL because of
Tools, Programs, Applications and don't have the option to change.
Zealotry is not good in any form, whether it's pro or anti MySQL, PG,
Windows or whatever. Shouting about how another religion is bad
doesn't make your point of view sound any less fanatical.
I'll get off my soapbox now. But I was eventually convinced that PG
was good, and in turn I too have convinced a few MySQL users to take a
closer look at PG, that's how a community grows. Not with venom
spitting and name calling. I'm now a full card carrying member of
PostgreSQL, but fortunately never happened across any PG zealots during
my search.
Just my 2 cents. Flame away
Tony.
Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
Martin Marques (Friday 26 December 2003 14:11)
Windows native port might be out in the next release (name it 7.5 or 8.0),
with many other things there, and it should be out by fall of next year,
which is much earlier then 2 years. :-)
Great. But I really don't see how this makes the DBMS any better at all. So
what if there's a native Windows port? Nobody that I've ever met or talked
to uses MySQL on Windows anyways, and you can always use cygwin if you're
really desperate.
PostgreSQL is primarily an open-source database for open-source systems. If
somebody wants to use MySQL just because they can run it on Windows, I say
let them.
What I *do* see is a whole bunch of MySQL users running around yapping about
how great and fantastic and fast MySQL is and how crappy PostgreSQL is. I
really don't understand them, and they're impossible to reason with.
You can ask "Does MySQL support nested select statements? I use these every
day", and they respond with "You can just use MySQL's proprietary SQL
extensions to do the same thing another way; and MySQL is fast, too!".
I think about the same of these people as I do of people who rave about the
superiority of Windows, their chosen religion, or the country they live in -
underinformed bigots.
>From all that I've read in terms of power, flexibility, and features,
PostgreSQL is far ahead of MySQL. And I've yet to see even the slightest
speed issue with a properly designed database schema. Maybe MySQL is faster
with un-normalized tables, and that's why they like to say it's faster? I
don't know, but I really don't care if that's the case.
Vertu sæll,
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
The confusing license terms and conditions was one of the main reasons I appeared on this list some weeks ago, when I was considering a commercial venture using a JDBC client application, and couldn't untangle who needed licenses, how many and what for exactly. After a breif foray on #postgresql getting some newbie questions answered (like: can PG do everything that MySQL can) don't laugh, I was new to this remember. I was informed that PG was the tool for the job. After having a conversation about Views, Triggers, Stored Procedures, I decided to find out what these things were and joined this list. Never looked back.. But... I was on #php a day or two ago, and mentioned PG to someone who was looking to solve a problem, he was quite interested, and asked what else PG could do. So I told him: Me: It has views. Him: What are they? Me: It has Stored Procedures Him: Are They Good? What Do They Do? Me: It has Triggers. Him: Will they help me? This really rattled some peoples cages and I ended up defending PG against some really ill thought out attacks. Like: MySQL User: But can PG deal with really complicated joins. Me: In many cases the extra functionality of PG avoids the problems where really complicated joins would be needed in MySQL MySQL User: But MySQL is fast, PG is not so fast. Me: With PG you can move much of the functionality INTO the database using stored procedures, these stored procedures will run faster than interpreted PHP, therefore taking the load away from the webserver. MySQL User: But my Apache/MySQL can handle squillions of hits/queries etc, PG probably couldn't. Do you know any sites that have a lot of traffic that use PG. Me: U... try the .org registry, I'm sure they have a reasonable traffic load. MySQL User: What project made you move to PG from MySQL Me: The confusing licensing conditions when I wanted to write a commercial app based on MySQL. This completely killed all traffic on the channel for a minute or two, while the cogs and gears whirred while people tried to Grock the concept of OSS MySQL costing money to use in an application. After this lengthy defence and answering many questions without the slightest hesitation from me (and I'm new to PG), it made me realise why I was thinking about a PostgreSQL for MySQL users paper. Just My 2 Cents Tony Chris Travers wrote: I would be surprised if people selling proprietary apps would choose MySQL over PostgreSQL. Simply put my point is that software can be proprietary or open source, but projects which try to do both often end up losing out. I see MySQL as trying to do both. As much as I like the idea of open sourse software, at this time, there is still a substantial market for proprietary applications, and although it may fade over time (and has already done so considerably), it is a market that must open source software must co-exist with rather than simply attempting to assimilate or trying to belong to both communities.. This is also why I have argued that the GPL is intended for self-contained projects, of which MySQL is not, when you include the client libs.
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On 28/12/2003 01:57 Chris Travers wrote: Regarding the importance of PostgreSQL on Windows. For example, I am developing a hotel reservation management application using Python and PostgreSQL (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openres). This will only run on Linux and UNIX, so in order to get this to run on Windows, I need to use either MySQL or Firebird. Or aI can require Cygwin. But that is a bit over the top IMO, for a small hotel or B&B to consider, especially because I want to run it if possible on existing equipment to keep implimentation costs down. I'm in a similar situation. My app is currently PG-only (although I _might_ be able to get it work with Firebird eventually). Currently I have to sell Linux to prospective clients in addition to my app. A native Windows version would make my life a bit easier. -- Paul Thomas +--+-+ | Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller Business | | Computer Consultants | http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk | +--+-+ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On 28/12/2003 08:47 John Sidney-Woollett wrote: I have found pgAdmin III to be an absolute godsend - this product is brilliant. With it, I can see all databases, schemas, objects, and grants quickly and clearly. This one tool turned postgres into an absolute joy to use (in much the same way that TOAD makes Oracle a joy to use). FWIW, TOAD as shipped with Fedora Core 1 has support for PostgreSQL :) -- Paul Thomas +--+-+ | Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller Business | | Computer Consultants | http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk | +--+-+ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
PGSQL 7.4 tips, was Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Hi Dante; From: "D. Dante Lorenso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I started with MySQL and it WAS easier to use. It was easier because > the manual essentially reads: > >-- we didn't implement anything complicated that's why >-- we are fast. > > The only SQL customizations that MySQL has that I really miss in PostgreSQL > are the commands: > > SHOW DATABASES; > SHOW TABLES; > DESC table; > With 7.4, PostgreSQL implements the standard information_schema so that one can essentially get all this information in a standard way with will presumably not be brokent too much in future versions. Prior to this release, you have to dig the information out of the system catelogs which would periodically change. Here are some examples (see the docs on the information schema ;-) SELECT table_name FROM information_schema.tables WHERE table_schema = 'public'; (lists all tables in the public schema) SELECT column_name, data_type FROM information_schema.columns WHERE table_name = 'pg_class'; (lists all columns from table pg_class, part of the system catelogs) One area where you may need to use the catalogs is in listing the databases in the cluster. To do this, use SELECT datname FROM pg_catalog.pg_database; > That was ubber simple to do in MySQL. To this day, I have trouble with > that in PostgreSQL. I'm constantly doing: > > psql> \? > psql> help; > ERROR: syntax error at or near "help" at character 1 > psql> \h > ... > * damnit, that's not it...* > psql> \? > psql> \d > * ok, now which flag do I use for tables vs functions..etc?* > Ok. Hope the tips above are helpful :-) > I finally figure it out, I just end up forgetting again later. I still > have no clue how I'd find the same data without using psql. In MySQL > I can run those queries from PHP, PERL...etc. I know you can find that > data in system tables in PostgreSQL, but I don't wanna muck around with > all that. I just wanna do something as simple as MySQL. > Another hint-- run psql -E to echo the queries to the screen, so that you can see how the information is being requested from the system catalogs. WARNING: Using the system catalogs is NOT supported across versions, as they tend to change from time to time. Use the information_schema instead wherever possible :-) > Course, with that said... I've been building ALL my database apps with > PostgreSQL because it just simply works even if it doesn't always work > simple-ly. > > As a plug, though ... I'm hooked on EMS PostgreSQL Manager 2.0. I'd have > to say that I'd not be as much of a PostgreSQL supporter if it weren't for > this client tool. I think EMS did the 'making it friendly to the developer' > that was sorely lacking in stock PostgreSQL client tools. Kudos. > > Dante > > -- > D. Dante Lorenso > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > >http://archives.postgresql.org > > ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 04:29:56AM -0500, Casey Allen Shobe wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout (Sunday 28 December 2003 02:57) > > Yes, they do vary, there is no stardard. As you point out, DB2 and MySQL > > use different commands, as does probably every other database. There is no > > command that is going to work everywhere. > > That's not what I meant. I mean that they *only* work in the psql client, not > when using PostgreSQL via ODBC or another interface. Hmm, I see. Obviously you could use the -E option to get the queries but it's not the same I grant you. SQL now defines an INFORMATION_SCHEMA, maybe that will bring some method to the madness. > > psql has variables, though I can't comment on how they compare to MSSQL's. > > Do you happen to have a link to documentation? If these aren't new, then I've > just somehow overlooked it. I'd love to read further... Interesting, I found them in psql's manpage under ADVANCED FEATURES - VARIABLES. Let's see if I can find it on the web... Here's a web version of the manpage. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/app-psql.html They're not in the backend though, though I'm not sure why you'd want that. Ofcourse, pl/pgsql has variables as do all the other languages. Hope this helps, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > (... have gone from d-i being barely usable even by its developers > anywhere, to being about 20% done. Sweet. And the last 80% usually takes > 20% of the time, too, right?) -- Anthony Towns, debian-devel-announce pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Chris Travers (Saturday 27 December 2003 06:44) > In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near or > long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists. Firebird > is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to > learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being as > easy to use as PostgreSQL. It all depends on the user community. People thought Christianity was a joke and would never be a serious threat to the pre-existing religions - look at the state of things today :\. You can blind yourselves to the users, but do this for long enough, and you'll discover you don't have any users, no matter how great your product might be. We live in a very strange world where people use what they see advertised the most, or what the most of their friends have told them to use, instead of doing actual research and making an educated decision. As a PostgreSQL user, I've had to deal with at least 20-30 MySQL nazis telling me that *I'm* the ignorant and accursed one, whereas I've met one guy who likes PostgreSQL. But I do not think the database needs improvement...IMHO it's already quite a lot better than MySQL. I think popular opinion needs to be less ignorant. And I don't know how to suggest doing that. P.S. What's this Firebird thing of which you speak? Is there now an open-source DBMS with the same name as an open-source web browser? Uh-oh... Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://rivyn.livejournal.com Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ICQ: 1494523; AIM/Yahoo: SomeLinuxGuy Free development contributor of: > KDE toolbar icons > Kopete user interface, usability, and testing > X11 Icelandic Dvorak keymaps > Reporting of over 100 Kopete bugs ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Jan Wieck (Friday 26 December 2003 10:02) > The strategy of misguiding people like "you don't need foreign keys", "you > don't need stored procedures", "yadda yadda triggers", "blah blah views" > didn't work forever. PRECISELY my point! But so many ignorant users fall for this and babble on saying the exact same thing when they come attacking you for choosing PostgreSQL. Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://rivyn.livejournal.com Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ICQ: 1494523; AIM/Yahoo: SomeLinuxGuy Free development contributor of: > KDE toolbar icons > Kopete user interface, usability, and testing > X11 Icelandic Dvorak keymaps > Reporting of over 100 Kopete bugs ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Regardless of the reasons, perception is reality. If we appear to be disheveled then we are. I would think that it should be possible to give the appearance of unity without actually requiring a full time web-master? Dave On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 12:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, one > > doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as > > interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc. > > Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid webmaster that > has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to control > everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ... > > > > > Dave > > > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > > > > > > > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to > > > > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would > > > > expect it in the docs. > > > > > > Like ... ? > > > > > > > > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > > > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > > > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > > > joining column's datatypes do not match > > > > > > > > > > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > > joining column's datatypes do not match > > > > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Martin Marques (Friday 26 December 2003 14:11) > Windows native port might be out in the next release (name it 7.5 or 8.0), > with many other things there, and it should be out by fall of next year, > which is much earlier then 2 years. :-) Great. But I really don't see how this makes the DBMS any better at all. So what if there's a native Windows port? Nobody that I've ever met or talked to uses MySQL on Windows anyways, and you can always use cygwin if you're really desperate. PostgreSQL is primarily an open-source database for open-source systems. If somebody wants to use MySQL just because they can run it on Windows, I say let them. What I *do* see is a whole bunch of MySQL users running around yapping about how great and fantastic and fast MySQL is and how crappy PostgreSQL is. I really don't understand them, and they're impossible to reason with. You can ask "Does MySQL support nested select statements? I use these every day", and they respond with "You can just use MySQL's proprietary SQL extensions to do the same thing another way; and MySQL is fast, too!". I think about the same of these people as I do of people who rave about the superiority of Windows, their chosen religion, or the country they live in - underinformed bigots. From all that I've read in terms of power, flexibility, and features, PostgreSQL is far ahead of MySQL. And I've yet to see even the slightest speed issue with a properly designed database schema. Maybe MySQL is faster with un-normalized tables, and that's why they like to say it's faster? I don't know, but I really don't care if that's the case. Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://rivyn.livejournal.com Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ICQ: 1494523; AIM/Yahoo: SomeLinuxGuy Free development contributor of: > KDE toolbar icons > Kopete user interface, usability, and testing > X11 Icelandic Dvorak keymaps > Reporting of over 100 Kopete bugs ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Hi all, Comments inline - Original Message - From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Chris Travers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 9:18 AM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote: > > > 2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the > > database manager. This slows their rate of development and we will > > continue to move faster than them. > > This could be argued both ways, actually ... their model makes for less > discussions on how to implement things ... they decide to implement it, do > it and commit the code without having to worry about whether anyone else > agrees with it ... > > The flip side to this, of course, is the lack of input from other > developers who may (or may not) agree with how it is being implemented ... Actually my concern here is something else. Open source is a very different software development methodology than proprietary software development is. Some time ago, in the MySQL manuals, I had actually see them claim that the larger development community of PostgreSQL was a bad thing. See-- here is the problem: Open Source development is at its best when the core team, in addition to doing development, help to foster an environment whereby the project grows in community-driven ways. I am not sure that a close corporate control over an open source project will ever lead to optimal software because the software will end up stuck between worlds. This is a major problem for some open source projects. I have always been a firm believer that software can be either proprietary or open source, but that the two cannot be combined well into one for general purpose tools and platforms. I feel that this is the mistake that Caldera made which has lead to their fall from one of the leading distros to the current situation where it is not even maintained anymore. In trying to sell Linux as if it were a proprietary platform, they allowed Red Hat in particular to out-manuver them. This is the same problem that Trolltech and MySQL AB have today, for which UserLinux has decided to use GNOME instead of KDE, and I would be surprised if people selling proprietary apps would choose MySQL over PostgreSQL. Simply put my point is that software can be proprietary or open source, but projects which try to do both often end up losing out. I see MySQL as trying to do both. As much as I like the idea of open sourse software, at this time, there is still a substantial market for proprietary applications, and although it may fade over time (and has already done so considerably), it is a market that must open source software must co-exist with rather than simply attempting to assimilate or trying to belong to both communities.. This is also why I have argued that the GPL is intended for self-contained projects, of which MySQL is not, when you include the client libs. In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near or long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists. Firebird is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being as easy to use as PostgreSQL. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote: > 2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the > database manager. This slows their rate of development and we will > continue to move faster than them. This could be argued both ways, actually ... their model makes for less discussions on how to implement things ... they decide to implement it, do it and commit the code without having to worry about whether anyone else agrees with it ... The flip side to this, of course, is the lack of input from other developers who may (or may not) agree with how it is being implemented ... > Regarding PHP vs Perl as equivalent to MySQL vs. PostgreSQL, I disagree > completely. PHP has a number of design elements which make it idea for > many types of applications, while Perl's DIFFERENT design concepts make > it ideal for a different set of applications. Many of these are > completely opposite and irreconcilable. Perl and PHP are just to > different to compare. I use both and appreciate both. I do agree on this one ... I switched over to PHP years back for Web based apps, since I liked its forms handling (always hated using the CGI modules for perl) ... but, for straight utilities, perl or shell is still my favorite ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Hi all; Regarding the questions of MySQL and PostgreSQL, I do expect PostgreSQL to continue to grow more slowly than MySQL for some time. However MySQL has a few problems in their approach that PostgreSQL lacks, and in time, there is no doubt in my mind that, of the open source databases available today, that PostgreSQL will be the winner. The problems with MySQL's include: 1: Trying to make the database manager tolerant of user errors by avoiding raising exceptions. PostgreSQL tries to make the database tolerant of user errors by raising exceptions where appropriate! 2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the database manager. This slows their rate of development and we will continue to move faster than them. Regarding PHP vs Perl as equivalent to MySQL vs. PostgreSQL, I disagree completely. PHP has a number of design elements which make it idea for many types of applications, while Perl's DIFFERENT design concepts make it ideal for a different set of applications. Many of these are completely opposite and irreconcilable. Perl and PHP are just to different to compare. I use both and appreciate both. MySQL and PostgreSQL are completely different. When I started learning PostgreSQL, it was a real PITA (version 6.5). I started to learn MySQL because it was far easier to manage than PostgreSQL was at the time. When I would develop PostgreSQL apps, I would usually prototype them on MySQL! But things have changed. PostgreSQL is every bit as easy to use now as MySQL for most, possibly even all, environments. A Windows port would be nice (hope it is out soon), but if not, that is what Firebird is for ;-) Lastly on the need for introspection-- I think we do need introspection. Not because of any imaginary gains that MySQL has made, but because we will always do better if we are rethinking and questioning our methodology. Introspection is always a good thing, and we should not wait for a competitive need. Best WIshes, Chris Travers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
I've noticed a similar strategy in the PHP vs Perl dimension. PHP started out being "simple and fast and easy to learn" by throwing off all of the "complexities of Perl that weren't needed". Slowly and steadily, lagging about 3 to 10 years behind, PHP has adding one-by-one all those "weird Perl features", but doing a poor job of integrating them. In another vein, PHP has added the features as their market has required them. Yes Perl has more features that PHP but so what? PHP works for those who use it. MySQL works for those who use it. That I believe is the fundamental problem with PostgreSQL vs. MySQL. They are different products: MS Access is a database MSSQL is a database Both have SQL capabilities... Which one would you run for your accounting system? O.k. I wouldn't run MSSQL for an accounting system either but I think my point is made... Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake So, you can get PHP for 2007 already. It's called Perl, and it's probably already installed on your box. "PostgreSQL is where MySQL will be in five years" might be a good catchmeme. Anyone wanna run with it? -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
El Vie 26 Dic 2003 13:18, Sai Hertz And Control Systems escribió: > Dear Martin Marques, > > >>What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection. > >> > >> > > > >1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around. > >lets say 2 years maybe? > >2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, and > >are getting optimized every new release. > > > > > 2 Years sounds good but does it matter ? , some day or other MySQL is > going to have more cutting edge features which are already is loaded > with features like Windows Port , Speed etc. Windows native port might be out in the next release (name it 7.5 or 8.0), with many other things there, and it should be out by fall of next year, which is much earlier then 2 years. :-) -- select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email; - Martín Marqués |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telemática Universidad Nacional del Litoral - ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
> "Jan" == Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jan> It seems to concern MySQL now at least. They have changed their minds Jan> on many enterprise features that PostgreSQL has for years. The Jan> strategy of misguiding people like "you don't need foreign keys", "you Jan> don't need stored procedures", "yadda yadda triggers", "blah blah Jan> views" didn't work forever. So they have to add or propose those Jan> features one by one. I've noticed a similar strategy in the PHP vs Perl dimension. PHP started out being "simple and fast and easy to learn" by throwing off all of the "complexities of Perl that weren't needed". Slowly and steadily, lagging about 3 to 10 years behind, PHP has adding one-by-one all those "weird Perl features", but doing a poor job of integrating them. So, you can get PHP for 2007 already. It's called Perl, and it's probably already installed on your box. "PostgreSQL is where MySQL will be in five years" might be a good catchmeme. Anyone wanna run with it? -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html Does this concern anyone. Well from one perspective MySQL is still playing catch up. While they are adding features that they still don't have stable OR that are labelled "Basic Support", PostgreSQL has had mature support for a long time. What I think is PostgreSQL would have less USP's (Uniqe Selling Points though we dont sell) now. Yes and know. USP is great, but we can argue (and will be able to for a LONG LONG TIME) that, "Sure mySQL can do that... sort of." What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection. It is never good to be placid in the industry but I think you will continue to see PostgreSQL growth. I get phone calls weekly from people who have come to realize that MySQL is just a toy. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Regards, Vishal Kashyap. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
