This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:05:34 -0500
From: Ken Harris <kharris@lhinfo.com>
Cc: pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Having worked with both MySQL and Postgresql, there is one thing that most
people overlook with all the hoopla about new features in MySQL. One that I
find impacts my clients and helps with their decision to move to Postgresql.
When using the new features on OLD MySQL databases, most of the time this means
a major coversion. You can't use the old "MyISAM" tables, you have to add the
new features, use their new Innodb table structure, and write all the stuff
anyway. Add in the table redesign, and normalization that didn't happen
originally and the decision about the database becomes a business decision, not
a political argumen. My argument at that point is, "Postgresql was designed to
do those things, they are not 'added features'. They are new to MySQL and
since you have to re-write anyway..."
So far, the clients have chosen Postgresql. Many of them are frustrated with
the lack of features in MySQL and simply are ready to move for the right
reasons. MySQL is great for a simple, fast, list manager, but once you start
needing constraints, functions, or any other 'normal' database features it
falls apart. I think the Postgresql team is doing well, they focus on
Postgresql, not what MySQL might do.
I say keep up the good work!
===
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:02:25 -0500
From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
To: aspire420@hotpop.com
Cc: pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Sai Hertz And Control Systems wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Their was a huge rore about MySQL recently for something in java functions
> now theirs one more
>
> http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html
>
> Does this concern anyone.
It seems to concern MySQL now at least. They have changed their minds on
many enterprise features that PostgreSQL has for years. 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. So they have to add or propose those features one by one.
Let's see them when they're done, okay?
===
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:52:37 -0400 (AST)
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
To: aspire420@hotpop.com
Cc: Martin Marques <martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar>, pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org,
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Sai Hertz And Control Systems wrote:
> Dear Martin Marques,
>
> 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.
How do you figure that? In 2 years, we will be that much further along
with our 'cutting edge features' that MySQL will still have a large gap to
catch up with ... there has been alot of commit's recently by Bruce for
the native windows port, and each release to date has always been that
much faster then the previous one ...
> Here I would like to mention I truly love PostgreSQL and at the same
> time succesfully using it my all apps but I am concerned with slow
> growth rate of popularity ( of PostgreSQL) and this new feature of MySQL
> today or tommorow will be a threat. And may push back PostgreSQL for
> enterprise class applications.
I don't believe so ... ppl aren't going to wait 2 years for what
PostgreSQL has now to implement ... and once implemented, they aren't
going to switch everything over to MySQL just because they finally have
that feature ...
===
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck@yahoo.com>
Cc: aspire420@hotpop.com, pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org,
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
Date: 26 Dec 2003 10:35:05 -0800
>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> 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?
===
From: "Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com>
To: <aspire420@hotpop.com>, <pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org>
Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 08:58:42 +0700
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.
===
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 22:18:23 -0400 (AST)
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
To: Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com>
Cc: aspire420@hotpop.com, pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org,
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
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 ...
===
From: "Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com>
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Cc: <aspire420@hotpop.com>, <pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org>,
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:44:48 +0700
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote:
> 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.
===
From: Casey Allen Shobe <cshobe@softhome.net>
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:31:35 -0500
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: Casey Allen Shobe <cshobe@softhome.net>
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:33:51 -0500
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.
===
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:10:22 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
From: "John Sidney-Woollett" <johnsw@wardbrook.com>
To: "Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>, aspire420@hotpop.com,
Why is everyone so concerned about how Postgres is product-placed compared
to MySQL? Do you really care whether users prefer MySQL or Postgres?
Why don't you just focus on your growing Postgres userbase, the core
product, and keep refining it (as you are). Granted you need to keep
looking around to see what other DB's offer, and keep the product fresh
and current.
As long time Oracle developer recently converted to Postgres, I think that
you would all do better to use Oracle as your benchmark instead of MySQL.
Oracle has become the enterprise defacto DB standard (through marketing
and general capability). But Oracle certainly isn't perfect - it has some
stinkers in it. The worst thing is lock-in. You get some nice features,
and then once you're committed it is very hard to get away again.
Don't just focus on the open source market, because I'll bet that there
are many commercial projects and enterprises who don't need much of a
nudge, and who would be willing to put Postgres in instead of Oracle,
Sybase or DB2.
I know the DBA of one company paying $800,000 a year in Oracle licences
and support contracts that was seriously looking at Postgres to provide
the same capability for MUCH less cost. Unfortunately, there were a few
show stoppers; no nested transaction support (#pragma autonomous), a
(perceived) lack of replication/distributed solutions, no real file level
admin (tablespaces etc). And the last straw was the amount of effort that
they would have to expend to port their app from Oracle to Postgres - due
in part to relying on features like Oracle's Context cartridge
(free text searching).
Postgres isn't far behind Oracle in terms of catch up on the missing
features, and in many way far exceeds Oracle. I suspect that within a few
versions, Postgres will match or exceed Oracle's capabilities. Right now I
would have no problem advising a client to use Postgres instead of Oracle
(except where one of the show stoppers is an issue).
What will really make sit and pay attention is when you see large
project's and clients migrate from Oracle, DB2, Sybase to postgres, and
when this gets widely reported. Perhaps the biggest danger to Postgres
then is Oracle waking up to a perceived threat from Postgres, and starting
to use its muscle to spread FUD about Postgres.
The best story I heard about Oracle (and I don't know if it's true or
not), is that Oracle would not run their internal support systems on an
Oracle DB up to version 4 (maybe 5) of Oracle due to reliability
concerns...
Stop worrying about MySQL - I'm not sure that you want those users until
they hit a deadend with MySQL and are wanting to trade up to an enterprise
solution.
I just have to add that Postgres (the db, and the postgres community) is
GREAT! I'm sold on it!
===
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:29:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Christopher Murtagh <christopher.murtagh@mcgill.ca>
To: "Randal L. Schwartz" <merlyn@stonehenge.com>
Cc: pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org, <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> 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.
Well, I hope that this doesn't parallel Postgres and MySQL, because
it would spell doom for Postgres.
http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200311/apachemods.html
Frankly, despite all it's weaknesses and inconsistencies, PHP *is* easier
to use and faster to develop than Perl. At least this is what my
experience has shown me and it seems that the survey above reflects the
same thing.
Since my experience with Postgres hasn't been that it is easier than
MySQL (quite the opposite in fact), perhaps some work needs to be done to
either dispel that myth, or to make sure that Postgres is easier to use
(since I started with Postgres and learned MySQL afterwards).
I know it sucks, but ease of use/simplicity goes a long way, often
further than performance, features and stability.
===
To: johnsw@wardbrook.com
Cc: "Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com>,
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
Date: 27 Dec 2003 09:51:32 -0800
>>>>> "John" == John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw@wardbrook.com> writes:
John> Why is everyone so concerned about how Postgres is
John> product-placed compared to MySQL? Do you really care whether
John> users prefer MySQL or Postgres?
I care, because as a consultant, I'm called in to solve other people's
problems when they most need help. And I'd rather solve problems
in PostgreSQL than farking around with MySQL.
I also am in an opportunity to be called in during the early phases of
project assessment and design. There, I have an opportunity to talk
about choice of database amongst other things. So, I need to be armed
with facts about choices, more than just anecdotes.
So this is a useful thread, for those areas of my business. Please
continue. :)
===
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:26:49 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
From: "John Sidney-Woollett" <johnsw@wardbrook.com>
To: "Randal L. Schwartz" <merlyn@stonehenge.com>
That's a fair point.
I used to get the same debate from customers when they wanted M$SqlServer,
and I would always try to steer them towards Oracle (even if the starting
point DB was simple). For me this was a no brainer (having used both
products), but it sometimes took a lot of convincing even when Oracle
provided no OS lock in, reliability, scalability, good 3rd party toolsets,
and loads of consultants willing/able to support it.
I'm not sure a comparison matrix is always helpful, because on paper
products can look comparable, but can be wildly different in real use. We
all drive cars, and they get you from A to B - in a paper feature
comparison they can be made to look fairly identical, but their real life
experience can be completely different.
I guess my point was really to use an enterprise database like Oracle as a
yard stick to judge Postgres against. Although the newer versions of
Oracle are becoming bloatware, so you need to be careful!
Compare MySQL to make a case for using Postgres over MySQL, sure. I
understand why you'd want and need to do that.
It just seems that some people are becoming fixated on the number of
features implemented in either MySQL or Postgres instead of looking at the
sum total of all the parts.
===
To: pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org, <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 10:31:11 -0800
Christopher Murtagh wrote:
> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Well, I hope that this doesn't parallel Postgres and MySQL, because
> it would spell doom for Postgres.
>
> http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200311/apachemods.html
>
> Frankly, despite all it's weaknesses and inconsistencies, PHP *is* easier
> to use and faster to develop than Perl. At least this is what my
> experience has shown me and it seems that the survey above reflects the
> same thing.
>
> Since my experience with Postgres hasn't been that it is easier than
> MySQL (quite the opposite in fact), perhaps some work needs to be done to
> either dispel that myth, or to make sure that Postgres is easier to use
> (since I started with Postgres and learned MySQL afterwards).
>
> I know it sucks, but ease of use/simplicity goes a long way, often
> further than performance, features and stability.
>
The problem with "making it easy" is clearly visible with M$ products. Stupid
clicking makes it sooo easy and convenient that anyone with an IQ higher than
a coffee-maker thinks he's a "system administator" just because he can click
onto the contolpanel.
My point is, that postgres is a fully featured database and mysql isn't. There
is only a certain degree of "making it easy" in a complex environment. And
IMHO there should be a certain degree of complexity to handle the system,
otherwise every idiot will call himself database administrator and screw up
things really bad
===
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:26:57 -0800
From: Gianni Mariani <gianni@mariani.ws>
To: pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
>Why is everyone so concerned about how Postgres is product-placed compared
>to MySQL? Do you really care whether users prefer MySQL or Postgres?
It's a natural frustration stemming from watching our fellow humans toil
needlessly. This is a study of human psycology that we all do to some
extent and when we see our value of "better product should be rewarded
more than a lesser product" there are cracks in the foundations of our
motives.
>
>Why don't you just focus on your growing Postgres userbase, the core
>product, and keep refining it (as you are). Granted you need to keep
>looking around to see what other DB's offer, and keep the product fresh
>and current.
>
Understanding the competition is usually neccessary to achieve this.
...
>I just have to add that Postgres (the db, and the postgres community) is
>GREAT! I'm sold on it!
Agreed.
===
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
From: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
To: "pgsql-general@postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Date: 27 Dec 2003 16:57:54 -0500
Dave Cramer wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > 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.
> I would think that it should be possible to give the appearance of unity
> without actually requiring a full time web-master?
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.
===
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
From: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: 27 Dec 2003 17:10:25 -0500
John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
> It just seems that some people are becoming fixated on the number of
> features implemented in either MySQL or Postgres instead of looking at the
> sum total of all the parts.
>
I'd tend to agree given that mysql's alpha uber new java pl language
with no given release date generates this much concern on these lists,
while microsofts next version of m$ $ql $erver is planning on having
.net compatible pl's, which should give them the ability to program pl
in multiple languages (like we currently have). This is a much better
feature and coming from a company I have more faith in to deliver the
goods than mysql and their javapl.
===
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:08:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Christopher Murtagh <christopher.murtagh@mcgill.ca>
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Carl Anderson wrote:
> This sentiment of ease of use is being repeated in this thread. Can
> those of you who feel that Postgres has ease of use problems be a bit
> more specific. Something like:
I'm not sure that Postgres is harder to use than MySQL (this is why I
called it a myth). Now, because I started with Postgres first and then had
to support MySQL afterward, I found MySQL a pain (and still do). Frankly,
I think that Postgres is a wonderful product, and this is why I use it for
everything that I do. Our university has just paid a one-time fee for
perpetual Oracle licenses, so for me Postgres and Oracle are at the same
level in terms of cost - and I still chose Postgres, mostly because I
found it easier to administer than Oracle.
However, there are some areas where I think Postgres could be a bit more
user friendly:
Some clearer documentation on the postgresql.conf settings, with perhaps
some example setups. The default settings are really not good for much
(which is stated in the docs), but perhaps having a DB 'slow' out of the
box for almost every setting is not a great idea. Maybe a configuration
script? (Dare I say 'Wizard'?)
MacOS X binaries. I have a bunch of friends who keep asking me MySQL
questions for their MacOS X machines (laptops and desktops). Since I don't
use MacOS much (despite the fact that my laptop is a Powerbook G4) and
MySQL even less, I can't be of much help. My first advice is always
'remove MySQL and install Postgres', which never gets a welcome response.
I might be able to help in this area in terms of providing a box to do
MacOS X builds, etc.. Marc Liyanage's page
(http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/postgresql/) is pretty helpful, but
not easy to find from the postgres.org site.
The other reason why a lot of friends of mine use MySQL is because the
dinky PHP/Perl/etc blog/photo gallery/web app they found on Freshmeat,
etc. was built without a database abstraction layer and needs to be gutted
to support Postgres. Maybe this is where the advocacy site and community
can help the most. We could list these utilities that only support MySQL
and ask for members of the community to contact the developers to help
them support Postgres. Now, there are a lot of these types of apps, most
of them aren't worth downloading let alone fixing, but unfortunately I
suspect this preventing a lot of people from using Postgres.
Anyway, those are just a couple of ideas. I'd be happy to help out with
some of them in anyway that I could. If anyone wants to spearhead these,
let me know if you need help.
===
From: "Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com>
To: <pg@fastcrypt.com>, "Robert Treat" <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 09:02:43 +0700
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 :-)
===
From: "Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com>
To: "Casey Allen Shobe" <cshobe@softhome.net>, <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:57:57 +0700
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.
===
From: "Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com>
To: "Casey Allen Shobe" <cshobe@softhome.net>, <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:32:11 +0700
I am not sure if my previous email was sent, so I am trying again.
From: "Casey Allen Shobe" <cshobe@softhome.net>
> 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.
This is exactly my point. A truly open source project with large community
involvement is fundamentally more responsive to user demands than a small
centralized one that releases the project under an open source license.
This hybrid approach sometimes works for a while but in the end, it does not
really work so well. We have already seen Caldera OpenLinux fall because of
such a strategy, and now, we are seeing GTK win many battles over QT for the
same reason (despite the fact that many people see QT as superior to GTK).
In fact the current success story I can see with the dual license strategy
is that of Sleepycat Software's Berkeley Database. But then it is a niche
product...
The fundamental problem is that although the 2-track approach starts out
with a larger, more vibrant community, it is harder to grow this community
because community involvement in the entire process is more limited.
> 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.
You know, this is the challenge at hand-- how to more successfully promote
PostgreSQL.
Although we should always be working to improve the database, I think that
you are right that it is not the limiting factor in competing with MySQL.
It is, however, when we are talking about competing with Oracle.
I see the work ahead to be along the following lines:
1: The development of a community-maintained curriculum for PostgreSQL. Or
at least a skill set definition that individuals can use in order to develop
the skills necessary to be considered truely competent.
2: Third parties producing PostgreSQL distributions, including client
libraries, additional PL's etc. They can then market their products and
help take some of the heat off the main advocacy site. I know that there
are already some closed-source distros out there from SRA, Command Prompt,
etc. but we also need some open source ones as well.
Maybe if I have the time. Or maybe some other consultants out there would
like to take this on as well, or at least help...
===
From: "Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 09:24:42 +0700
"Christopher Murtagh" <christopher.murtagh@mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Since my experience with Postgres hasn't been that it is easier than
> MySQL (quite the opposite in fact), perhaps some work needs to be done to
> either dispel that myth, or to make sure that Postgres is easier to use
> (since I started with Postgres and learned MySQL afterwards).
When I started with PostgreSQL and MySQL, MySQL was far easier to use,
especially during the prototyping phase. I would actually do all my
prototyping on MySQL and then migrate to PostgreSQL and edit the schemas.
This was version 6.5...
Since then, PostgreSQL has removed all the obstacles I had seen towards its
use. For example, we now have ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN, and a host of other
goodies to make it as easy to use as MySQL.
Basically, with phppgadmin and a few other tools, PostgreSQL is just as easy
to use as MySQL for the things that MySQL does. There are a few programming
issues with PHP (most notably the fact that the result sets in PHP are not
foreward only), but this is can be very useful.
Of course, learning views, new data types, etc. that MySQL doesn't have
makes the product harder to use but then MySQL can't do these things anyway.
PostgreSQL IMO has a bit of an intimidating reputation due in part to its
past lack of ease of use....
===
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:24:56 -0800
From: Gianni Mariani <gianni@mariani.ws>
To: Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com>
Cc: Casey Allen Shobe <cshobe@softhome.net>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
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.
>
>
Does Microsoft's "Windows Services for Unix" run Postgresql ?
I was a little surprised (but it makes sense) that Microsoft actually
ships GNU based products.
Another option is to use Linux under VMWARE and put PostgreSQL under it.
However, I'd agree that a native port to windows would be best.
===
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:27:44 -0500
From: "Keith C. Perry" <netadmin@vcsn.com>
To: johnsw@wardbrook.com
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Sorry to jump into this late but I just had to commment...
Quoting John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw@wardbrook.com>:
> That's a fair point.
>
> I used to get the same debate from customers when they wanted M$SqlServer,
> and I would always try to steer them towards Oracle (even if the starting
> point DB was simple). For me this was a no brainer (having used both
> products), but it sometimes took a lot of convincing even when Oracle
> provided no OS lock in, reliability, scalability, good 3rd party toolsets,
> and loads of consultants willing/able to support it.
>
> I'm not sure a comparison matrix is always helpful, because on paper
> products can look comparable, but can be wildly different in real use. We
> all drive cars, and they get you from A to B - in a paper feature
> comparison they can be made to look fairly identical, but their real life
> experience can be completely different.
>
> I guess my point was really to use an enterprise database like Oracle as a
> yard stick to judge Postgres against. Although the newer versions of
> Oracle are becoming bloatware, so you need to be careful!
>
> Compare MySQL to make a case for using Postgres over MySQL, sure. I
> understand why you'd want and need to do that.
>
> It just seems that some people are becoming fixated on the number of
> features implemented in either MySQL or Postgres instead of looking at the
> sum total of all the parts.
Extremely good point. I actually stopped using paper comparisons because in the
end its simply my word and experience against someone elses. If someone wants
to go feature by feature, I have my PG table of contents and some other
highlight points usually with me. In my
experience, I've never had a problem deploying PG- maybe it is because I've been
lucky to not get into "contests" like what I've hearing or maybe it is because
most of the chatter I encounter is with Oracle, Sybase, Informix and the MS
product. I do remember times when I have said things like, "I would not put my
company's data on MySQL or MS-SQL"
and things like, "my company's consulting app was developed on PostgreSQL and
has been in use for <number inserted here> years".
To the point- I don't make it solely about the product. That is only part of
the successful formula for building an application. You have to "sell" yourself
just as much as you have to sell the components of your solutions (if your
clients care). Truth be told, I have turned down (i.e. walked away from or
simply lost) projects based on the fact that I would NOT architect a
solution with product which I did not feel comforatable deploying.
Business-wise that might be bad thing for cash flow but in the long run, I don't
think it is. Products are not successful unless they are used and if you
politely refuse to use a particular product that, if nothing, else sends a strong
message. 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".
Another technique that corporate folks use is get testimonials. Here is where I
think we can shine. Imagine that you are in a meeting and someone doubts the
viability of PG for whatever reason. I'd love to be able to say somethings like
this, "I will get you a list of developers and the applications they have
designed and YOU can pick who you want to get a reference from. Talk to as many
people as you need to feel comforable". That would go a long way because the
client could look for similar projects and because I am not picking the person
that is giving the testimonial, the reference is less biased.
Imagine that list containing hundreds of people from all over the world...
*grin*
I would certainly make myself available to any one in the community. AFAIK,
there was a very short list on "success stories" on advocacy or techdocs but if
the community thinks something like this would be useful then perhaps we should
"market" those stories and their authors more formally.
===
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:45:31 -0600
From: "D. Dante Lorenso" <dante@lorenso.com>
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
> When I started with PostgreSQL and MySQL, MySQL was far easier
> to use
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;
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?*
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.
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.
===
From: Casey Allen Shobe <cshobe@softhome.net>
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:42:20 -0500
D. Dante Lorenso (Sunday 28 December 2003 00:45)
> The only SQL customizations that MySQL has that I really miss in PostgreSQL
> are the commands:
>
> SHOW DATABASES;
> SHOW TABLES;
> DESC table;
I agree here. Similarly, one of the things I miss most from DB2 is 'LIST
TABLES'. I don't have any problem at all remembering \commands - the only
problem is, as you described, that they are unique to psql.
One of the things I miss most from MSSQL is the ability to use variables.
Supposedly MySQL has this ability as well. I can come up with a very good
reason if you want to hear it ;-).
===
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:57:44 +1100
From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
To: Casey Allen Shobe <cshobe@softhome.net>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
> D. Dante Lorenso (Sunday 28 December 2003 00:45)
> > The only SQL customizations that MySQL has that I really miss in PostgreSQL
> > are the commands:
> > SHOW DATABASES;
> > SHOW TABLES;
> > DESC table;
> I agree here. Similarly, one of the things I miss most from DB2 is 'LIST
> TABLES'. I don't have any problem at all remembering \commands - the only
> problem is, as you described, that they are unique to psql.
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.
> One of the things I miss most from MSSQL is the ability to use variables.
> Supposedly MySQL has this ability as well. I can come up with a very good
> reason if you want to hear it ;-).
psql has variables, though I can't comment on how they compare to MSSQL's.
===
From: Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 09:29:00 +0100
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
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?
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.
===
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:47:16 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
From: "John Sidney-Woollett" <johnsw@wardbrook.com>
To: "D. Dante Lorenso" <dante@lorenso.com>
>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.
This is a good point.
Postgres the db is great. psql is fine but you have to know it well to get
the most out of it, and you need to know which views and tables to query
to make "sense" of your database (when you're away from your DB data
models etc).
For the newbie (myself included) this can be daunting and hard. Coupled
with 'light' documentation, this presents a learning curve which is
significant if you've never used an enterprise level db before, and you're
floundering around with the difference between databases, schemas and
users (etc).
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).
I reckon that I use psql and pgAdmin III in equal proportion, but for me
it's pgAdmin III that makes postgres compelling and blindingly good.
===
From: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com>
To: "D. Dante Lorenso" <dante@lorenso.com>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:30:40 +0530
Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
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..
===
From: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com>
To: "D. Dante Lorenso" <dante@lorenso.com>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:30:40 +0530
Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
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..
===
From: Casey Allen Shobe <cshobe@softhome.net>
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:29:56 -0500
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> 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.
> 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...
===
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:56:07 +1100
From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
To: Casey Allen Shobe <cshobe@softhome.net>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > 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.
>=20
> Do you happen to have a link to documentation? If these aren't new, then=
I've=20
> 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.
===
To: "pgsql-general @ postgresql . org" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
From: Paul Thomas <paul@tmsl.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:45:49 +0000
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 :)
===
To: "pgsql-general @ postgresql . org" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
From: Paul Thomas <paul@tmsl.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:49:36 +0000
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.
===
To: Casey Allen Shobe <cshobe@softhome.net>
From: Tony <tony@unihost.net>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:30:44 +0000
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.
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.
===
To: Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org,
From: Tony <tony@unihost.net>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:44:24 +0000
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.
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: Ummmm... 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.
===
To: "pgsql-general @ postgresql . org" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
From: Paul Thomas <paul@tmsl.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:20:28 +0000
Tony wrote:
> 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: Ummmm... 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 ;)
===
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
From: Casey Allen Shobe <cshobe@softhome.net>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:37:58 -0500
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.
===
To: Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com>
From: "Keith C. Perry" <netadmin@vcsn.com>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:00:45 -0500
Quoting Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com>:
> 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 :-)
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.
===
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
From: Casey Allen Shobe <cshobe@softhome.net>
Subject: Re: PGSQL 7.4 tips, was Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:00:52 -0500
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 ;-).
===
To: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com>
From: "Keith C. Perry" <netadmin@vcsn.com>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:20:53 -0500
Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com>:
> 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..
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".
===
To: Tony <tony@unihost.net>
From: "Keith C. Perry" <netadmin@vcsn.com>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:52:13 -0500
Quoting Tony <tony@unihost.net>:
> 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".
> 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.
>
===
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
From: Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:03:45 +0100
Keith C. Perry wrote:
> Quoting Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>:
>>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.
Cost prohibitive ?
So you mean that put the DB and the GUI on the same
Windows workstation is less expensive that leave the GUI on a windows
system and the DB on a *nix box.
Your client is aware of about much cost loose his datas ?
I repeat again: "Don't put your DB host under the hand of the
final user" don't mentioning the fact that the host is a windows host!
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
===
To: pg@fastcrypt.com
From: "Keith C. Perry" <netadmin@vcsn.com>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:55:09 -0500
Quoting Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>:
> Keith,
>
> In principal it can, however lets say that I am a complete newbie to
> postgres and I want to use my favourite interface odbc, jdbc, .... etc.
>
> So I download the source tarball and build it, then I goto find my
> interface ... and it isn't there ( in all fairness jdbc is still there
> but that won't be true shortly )
>
> The same is true for most tools; psql being the exception
>
> Now what do I do, I have to hunt around for the tools looking through a
> myriad of projects on gborg, go to the lists etc.
The current README (well the 7.4 one) could do a better job of saying that gborg
is where you should look for links for all things PG. I wouldn't say that you
have to "hunt" for things though.
> 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.
===
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
From: Casey Allen Shobe <cshobe@softhome.net>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:26:03 -0500
Keith C. Perry wrote:
> > 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.
I think that a combined package of PostgreSQL and pgAdmin III should be
available.
===
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
From: Alex Satrapa <alex@lintelsys.com.au>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:16:03 +1100
Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
> I think that a combined package of PostgreSQL and pgAdmin III should be
> available.
Just convince your distribution's postgresql package maintainer to add
pgadmin iii to the "suggests/recommends" portion of the package
management metadata.
===
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
From: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:25:34 +0530
Keith C. Perry wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > are just part of bit steeper learning curve of a standard way of doing
> > things..
> 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.
Certainly.. but people do that. Because copmparing unknown to a known idea is
only way to learn it.
If all I know is mysql, I am going to try and model postgresql to fit mysql
point of view. Soon enough postgresql will grow out of it but that is a
different story.
> 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.
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.
Now how good practice of 'glance over and get hang of it' is, remains a topic
of debate though..:-)
===
To: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:17:34 -0500
Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com> 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
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...
===
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
From: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:08:18 +0530
Tom Lane wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com> 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
===
To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:51:00 -0500
From: Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
>>I'm not trying to be curt with you or anything but a serious questions, did you
>>not see the links on the right side of http://www.postgresql.org under where it
>>says websites?
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 :-)
===
To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:11:22 +0100
From: "B. van Ouwerkerk" <bvo@atz.nl>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
SNIP
> > 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.)
SNIP
>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.
No offence.. but..
Not clear enough? Not sure. What I do think is that some pages do not go
into greater detail where they could and imo should.
I have presented this before as an example. If you install PG you're
supposed to create a user postgres but nobody writes about what shell that
user needs and even if that user is supposed to have a shell at all..
homedir etc?? dunno..
Another example? alright, data types. I found a very helpful list at the
website but I didn't see the limitations per type (maximum lenght like
MySQL says varchar max 255), or is it hidden somewhere on the PG website?.
While working on PG with PHP I noticed several warnings and notices. The PG
docs did mention all of them but not if they are good or bad so the hunting
continues via google.
FWIW, if you feed the message to the PG search it doesn't return anything.
It would certainly help if the docs would clarify if something is good or bad.
Some messages ago I saw someone writing about something like "this is the
manual not handholding". IMO there is a difference between a well written
and complete manual and handholding.
Having said that, I realise it's a lot of work to keep good documentation
into synch with development..
If find the search on Postgresql.org slow and not always very logical, but
I think that has been said before..
===
To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:33:35 -0500
From: "Keith C. Perry" <netadmin@vcsn.com>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Quoting "B. van Ouwerkerk" <bvo@atz.nl>:
> SNIP
>
> > > 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.)
>
> SNIP
>
> >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.
>
> No offence.. but..
>
> Not clear enough? Not sure. What I do think is that some pages do not go
> into greater detail where they could and imo should.
>
> I have presented this before as an example. If you install PG you're
> supposed to create a user postgres but nobody writes about what shell that
> user needs and even if that user is supposed to have a shell at all..
> homedir etc?? dunno..
Hmmmm. Ok, I had several gut reactions...
1) The shell doesn't matter unless you're interfacing to the DB with
shell scripts. In that case pick your poison
2) I wonder how the linux skills set of those installing PG are
3) there are several ways to add users in linux
3) Wait- forget linux what about FreeBSD the other OS'
Conclusion, we can't possibly do detailed descriptions for every nuance BUT, I
do understand what you mean.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/installation.html#INSTALL-SHORT
I suppose could be expanded (or at least commented). That section should
probably read as overview since we still what the "long" version read too.
I was going to upgrade to 7.4.1 on my laptop so if people think a "Installing
PostgreSQL on Linux" technote is needed (and does not already exsist in another
form) then I'd be more than happy to do it.
> Another example? alright, data types. I found a very helpful list at the
> website but I didn't see the limitations per type (maximum lenght like
> MySQL says varchar max 255), or is it hidden somewhere on the PG website?.
??? That is right in the Data Types chapter...
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/datatype.html
> While working on PG with PHP I noticed several warnings and notices. The PG
> docs did mention all of them but not if they are good or bad so the hunting
> continues via google.
> FWIW, if you feed the message to the PG search it doesn't return anything.
>
> It would certainly help if the docs would clarify if something is good or
> bad.
I was just running something else so my mind is not mush but I thought the
messages reported were prepending with the standard syslog severity level, no?
> Some messages ago I saw someone writing about something like "this is the
> manual not handholding". IMO there is a difference between a well written
> and complete manual and handholding.
> Having said that, I realise it's a lot of work to keep good documentation
> into synch with development..
What was meant there (for my part in that) is that the docs are very complete
when you consider them as references. That is really what you are going to need
after you learn the product. I think what is coming out of this discussion
today is that we the current docs are references and might scare of people who
are need to SQL and/or PG so, we need something else to get them going and used
to how things are done in the PG world.
> If find the search on Postgresql.org slow and not always very logical, but
> I think that has been said before..
If this was IRC and we had a word bot slow and search would be in the top 5
today :)
===
To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 00:17:45 +0100
From: Frank Finner <postgresql@finner.de>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
am I the only one preferring plain old printed documentation? Or do you
all have 55 inch gigapixel displays being able to show browser based
documentation, an editor, a debugger and the application to be
developed at the same time?
IMHO HTML or similiar documentation with links and full text search
engines is quite useful to find just the little piece of information
that is missing - or a user