Jordan,
Thank you for that explanation. I just didn't think to click on schema
because I don't really know what a schema is.
I guess I need to learn about schema's and all the rest of the complex
features available in PostgreSQL and not in MySQL or Access.
-Aaron
~~~
> You should give the command line client (psql) a try. A command line client
> may sound archaic, but it offers some pretty nifty advantages:
I started learning MySQL with using the command line but then when I
went to phpMyAdmin I found it much more efficient (I am not a db
adminstrator, so I a
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> You should give the command line client (psql) a try. A command line client
> may sound archaic, but it offers some pretty nifty advantages:
and of course it will put hair on your chest.
~|
Create r
Aaron Roberson wrote:
>
> pgAdmin III comes installed out of the box with PostgreSQL and I
> cannot figure out how to create tables using it either. At least in
> phpPgAdmin I can write SQL directly to create tables, but phpMyAdmin
> has UI features for creating tables.
>
> I would prefer using ph
Hi Aaron,
We use phpPgAdmin extensively. First, just to cover the bases, you will
need to create your database first. Each PostgreSQL installation allows
you to create any number of individual databases.
After you've got your database created, you can create a table within
that database by clicki
> It has been a while since last time I used PostgreSQL. But this could be
> worth a try:
> http://www.pgadmin.org/
pgAdmin III comes installed out of the box with PostgreSQL and I
cannot figure out how to create tables using it either. At least in
phpPgAdmin I can write SQL directly to create tab
Roberson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1:58 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: MySQL vs PostgreSQL
I usually use phpMyAdmin for MySQL administration. This week I installed
PostgreSQL and phpPgAdmin. Does anyone know any good resources for learning
how to use phpPgAdmin? At present
>I usually use phpMyAdmin for MySQL administration. This week I
> installed PostgreSQL and phpPgAdmin. Does anyone know any good
> resources for learning how to use phpPgAdmin? At present, it seems
> that the only way to create tables is to write SQL.
It has been a while since last time I used Pos
I usually use phpMyAdmin for MySQL administration. This week I
installed PostgreSQL and phpPgAdmin. Does anyone know any good
resources for learning how to use phpPgAdmin? At present, it seems
that the only way to create tables is to write SQL.
-Aaron
~
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 16:57, Munson, Jacob wrote:
> Right, but you can do that anyway, right? There are always contracting
> companies around that will gladly take your money to fix things for you.
True, but most of them will still only support versions X, Y and Z running in
the manner A
> When I was trying to convince an boss at an earlier job that we should use
> Delphi for a programming project instead of VS, he played the 'support'
> card. To counter that, I did some searching, made some phone calls, and had
> a list of local companies that could offer Delphi support if needed
>
> > Right, but you can do that anyway, right? There are always contracting
> > companies around that will gladly take your money to fix things for you.
>
>
> Sure there are. For instance, we sell that sort of support. But there is a
> catch: if you don't already have a contract, you don't know t
Munson, Jacob wrote:
>>
>> 'Supported' means when if it falls over in a big steaming mess at 9am on a
>> Monday, I can phone someone else and have them come fix it because they
>> promised it would work.
I have never seen a support contract where they promised it would work, only
support contr
Munson, Jacob wrote:
>>I've long recommended PostgreSQL as a very viable and capable
>>enterprise
>>alternative to MS SQL or MySQL. While there's nothing inherently wrong
>>with either of those databases, PostgreSQL has a much more liberal
>>license. You could pack it up, rebrand it, and sell it r
> > supported is an idea for wimpy CIO/MBA types that don't trust their
> > staff, but that's another topic altogether. :)
>
> Nah.
> 'Supported' means when if it falls over in a big steaming
> mess at 9am on a
> Monday, I can phone someone else and have them come fix it
> because they
> prom
Munson, Jacob wrote:
>
> How much pain do you have to go through to get PostgreSQL to run on
> CFMX/BD? Is it easier, the same, or more difficult than MySQL?
CFMX: same.
BD: easier, PostgreSQL is supported out of the box, for MySQL you need to
install the driver yourself.
Jochem
~
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 16:03, Munson, Jacob wrote:
> How much pain do you have to go through to get PostgreSQL to run on
> CFMX/BD? Is it easier, the same, or more difficult than MySQL?
It's *exactly* the same unless you are pushing the edges, or redistributing.
> supported is an idea fo
> I've long recommended PostgreSQL as a very viable and capable
> enterprise
> alternative to MS SQL or MySQL. While there's nothing inherently wrong
> with either of those databases, PostgreSQL has a much more liberal
> license. You could pack it up, rebrand it, and sell it right
> along with
>
Damien McKenna wrote:
> On 12/5/06 10:24 PM, Jordan Michaels wrote:
>> http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/6
>
> Am I the only one who reads this to mean that MySQL is faster with lower
> demand but that PostgreSQL ramps up better with higher usage?
That is how I read it too. It serves as a great exa
Gotcha. Thank you for clarifying James.
-Original Message-
From: James Holmes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:41 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: MySQL vs PostgreSQL
>From those graphs, only for low numbers of users. As soon as the
number of users beco
;
> -Original Message-
> From: Jordan Michaels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:25 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: MySQL vs PostgreSQL
>
>
> I've long recommended PostgreSQL as a very viable and capable enterprise
> alternative to MS SQL
On 12/5/06 10:24 PM, Jordan Michaels wrote:
> http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/6
Am I the only one who reads this to mean that MySQL is faster with lower
demand but that PostgreSQL ramps up better with higher usage? I'm glad to
see them testing PGSQL 8.2, which was just released yesterday, but I'm
So it appears that mySQL is much faster?
-Original Message-
From: Jordan Michaels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:25 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: MySQL vs PostgreSQL
I've long recommended PostgreSQL as a very viable and capable enterprise
alternative to M
I've long recommended PostgreSQL as a very viable and capable enterprise
alternative to MS SQL or MySQL. While there's nothing inherently wrong
with either of those databases, PostgreSQL has a much more liberal
license. You could pack it up, rebrand it, and sell it right along with
your own CFML ap
Access) can be configured to do that for you.
barneyb
> -Original Message-
> From: dan martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 8:50 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: sql2k vs mySQL vs postgresql (for win2k)
>
>
> How do you folks handle the access relat
How do you folks handle the access relationships when changing to mySQL? From the
manual it looks like the equivalent functionality is covered using foreign key
constraints. Is this right?
The foreign key constraints require that both sides of the relationship have the
foreign key be the first
arge, though plenty of folks do use MySQL that way. And of
course you can't beat the price!
Regards,
John Paul Ashenfelter
CTO/Transitionpoint
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "dan martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks guys. This is great information. I am excited to try it out.
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FA
M
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: sql2k vs mySQL vs postgresql (for win2k)
Howdy Dan,
Sunday, March 9, 2003, 8:31:54 PM, dan martin wrote:
> ... I am wondering if it would make more sense to migrate to an open
> source db: mySQL or postgresql. I am running win2k with cf5 and would
> like to ke
ml
- A collection of Articles about MySQL:
http://www.mysql.com/articles/index.html
- and of course, the big kahuna, MySQL Reference Manual:
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/index.html
A couple more comparisons:
- PostgreSQL vs. MySQL:
http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/2001/09/jepson/
- MySQL
Thanks very much for the information. It looks like it is definitely worth more
investigation. Both alternatives to sql2k look very promising for my purposes.
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Peter Mayer wrote:
> Hello!
>
> mysql has a very good performance but if you need certain features like
> views or subselect this database is out of the game. Postgresql fullfills
> almost all standard criterias for a "real" database engine but it is a
> little bit more complex. Running Postgre
> BTW, one database you didn't mention was Firebird. I hear it is almost
> as capable as PostgreSQL and it does have a native Windows version.
firebird's not quite as "standard" as postgreSQL (it offers "many ANSI
SQL-92 features"), has some syntax differences from sql server/access. it
has some n
isn't that funny.
Some more hints:
http://phd.pp.ru/Software/SQL/PostgreSQL-vs-MySQL.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=mysql+versus+postgresql
Best regards,
Peter
Orginale Nachricht
Von: dan martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Betreff: sql2k vs mySQL vs postgresql (for win2k)
D
dan martin wrote:
>
> I am currently using ms access with a growing 20mb database that I need to upgrade.
> My initial plan was to migrate over to SQL 2000 because that seems to be the most
> painless (except for price). I am wondering if it would make more sense to migrate
> to an open source
Hi,
I am currently using ms access with a growing 20mb database that I need to upgrade. My
initial plan was to migrate over to SQL 2000 because that seems to be the most
painless (except for price). I am wondering if it would make more sense to migrate to
an open source db: mySQL or postgresql.
36 matches
Mail list logo
