473,889 Members | 1,431 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Is my MySQL Gaining ?

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.

What I think is PostgreSQL would have less USP's (Uniqe Selling Points
though we dont sell) now.

What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection.

Regards,
Vishal Kashyap.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

Nov 12 '05
175 11565
"Ericson Smith" <er**@did-it.com> Wrote:
A documentation system like the one over at http://php.net, would be
fantastic for Postgresql. There could be lookups based on SQL commands,
Functions, and Sitewide Searches. This alone would go a long way to
expose PHP to "the masses".
Here is the problem, IMO. PHP has a very well developed documentation
system which already closely parallels the PostgreSQL docs-- i.e. light
tutorial, with more advanced manual sections, etc. In fact, the PostgreSQL
documentation has more depth and is more comprehensive than the PHP manual
(which is broad and shallow)..

However, a language like PHP is very different from an enterprise DB, so our
tutorial really doesn't help a newbie to databases understand how to USE
PostgreSQL. In order to do this, it would need to cover a bunch of other
topics as well, such as normalization, etc. The result would be something
that you probably would not want to include in your standard reference
manual.

In other threads, I have been vocal on the need for a community-maintained
PostgreSQL curriculum separate from the official PostgreSQL docs. I
honestly think that this need would be well addressed by such a curriculum.
The closest thing that is available at the moment, IMO, is Bruce Momjian's
book.
In terms of using MySQL or Postgresql, lets all face it, most data
storage work could be easily and efficiently handled by text files,
since there needs to be just infrequent inserts and updates, and mostly
reads. The majority of interfaces exposed on the web follow this
paradigm, and include:
* Content management
* Catalogs
* Shopping cart stuff
* User management
True, until you need transactional control. Then text files break down very
fast.
Yes, our powerful and easy to use PG can do all of that too, but SQLite,
Sleepycat DBM files and MySQL can do it as well. There are going to be
even more migrations for Oracle to MySQL than from Oracle to PG, because
so many of those Oracle installations were overkill in the first place.
Perhaps, except that Oracle DBA's may find PostgreSQL more to their liking
than MySQL.

Getting mindshare is a different problem. That requires PG to have a
full time effective press person. This press person would need to be in
touch with the press constantly to tell them things like:
* PG is a great back for windows clients using ODBC/MS Access/Excel
* PG is a "real" database comparable to Oracle
* PG costs nothing
* Free support is fabulous, and paid support is available
* Development is constant
And this need is not filled by the Advocacy group how? If we were to do as
you propose, who would pay that person?
In the end, I believe that PG needs to move into an organizational
structure so that its considerable assets can be fully realized, its
wonderful developers may be fully compensated, and commercial users (our
bread and butter), can have an official place to help sponsor features
of the system and so on. All this is more than a website. Someone posted
pictures of the PG booth at a show recently. It was nice, but there was
this one sad guy shrouded in darkness -- I felt depressed, because
that's how PG advocacy felt.


I am not opposed to the idea of a non-profit organization similar to those
that run Apache, XFree86, etc. I think it would take some work to do, and
there may need to be some debate to iron out how this would work. But I am
not sure that it is the only or even the best way.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddres sHere" to ma*******@postg resql.org)

Nov 12 '05 #121
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote:
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:44:48 +0700
From: Chris Travers <ch***@travelam ericas.com>
To: Marc G. Fournier <sc*****@postgr esql.org>
Cc: as*******@hotpo p.com, pg***********@p ostgresql.org,
pg***********@p ostgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?


<snip>
In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near or
long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists. Firebird
is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to
learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being as
easy to use as PostgreSQL.


I suggest that it is a bit premature, to suggest that MySQL will
disappear, and that PostgreSQL will still exist.

Each does have its advantages, and, people develop things in parallel in
the two different systems.

For example, on the perl-gedcom list, people have developed, in
parallel, genealogy database systems that they use, some using MySQL,
some using PostgreSQL. People have their preferences, as some still use
(or require to be used) MS Access, or Foxpro, or SQL-Server, or
Informix, etc.

Does PostgreSQL yet allow the user or programmer, to determine where the
database will be stored? From memory, that has (or had) been a
shortcoming of PodtgreSQL; there was no control as to where the database
was stored, so that, for example, from my understanding, where an ISP
allowed PostgreSQL usage for web sites, all of the PostgreSQL databases
of all the ISP account holders, were stored in the same location, which
was not under the account-holder's home directory; similarly, if I, on a
LAN, create a database InventoryThing, as user frednerk, and, create a
database AccountsThing, as user joebloggs, my understanding is that both
databases will be stored in a central PostgreSQL repository, rather than
under each user home directory. Thus, if the frednerk home directory and
everything under it, is backed up by frednerk, it appears that
InventoryThing is not backed up, and, similarly, with joebloggs and
AccountsThing. Likewise with separate ISP accounts and any PostgreSQL
databases that they have and use on their web sites. Clarification of
whether my understanding is correct, would be appreciated.

--
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
...............

"So once you do know what the question actually is,
you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
Chapter 28 of
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
A Trilogy In Four Parts",
written by Douglas Adams,
published by Pan Books, 1992
............... ............... ............... ........
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Nov 12 '05 #122
Bret Busby <br**@busby.net > writes:
Does PostgreSQL yet allow the user or programmer, to determine where the
database will be stored?


You speak as though you think that would be a good idea.

In my mind, "where the database is stored" is not a matter for users,
nor for programmers, but for DBAs --- that is, the grunts who have to
worry about backup policies and suchlike. This is not an issue that
should be exposed at the SQL-command level, and therefore it does not
concern either users or database programmers.

That's not to say that we don't have work to do here. There's
considerable interest in developing "tablespace " features to help the
DBA manage his problems. But I absolutely will not buy into any
suggestion that user foo's tables must be stored in user foo's home
directory (even if I thought that Postgres user foo must correspond
to a local Unix user foo ... which I don't ...)

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Nov 12 '05 #123
Does it say that there is a limit? Yes surely there is one, which most likely
will depends on the Processor and OS you are running (64 bit or 32 bit), but
anyway, such log varchars wouldn't be that recommended, and maybe the TEXT
data type would be more suitable.


If you are used to MySQL you're used to a maximum limit because of MySQL
will set a limit.
This kind of information is interesting if you're trying to understand
PostgreSQL.

FWIW, we already started to use text :-)

B.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #124
However, a language like PHP is very different from an enterprise DB, so our
tutorial really doesn't help a newbie to databases understand how to USE
PostgreSQL. In order to do this, it would need to cover a bunch of other
topics as well, such as normalization, etc. The result would be something
that you probably would not want to include in your standard reference
manual.


IMO normalization is something not specific for PostgreSQL. Although some
individuals on this list seem to think otherwise, normalization is just as
important when you're using MySQL.

And even if you want to include that kind of information you could do this
by linking to good information already online. There are several
informative articles at both phpbuilder and devshed.
But this would only be relevant if you're completely new to designing
databases.

B.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Nov 12 '05 #125
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:07:23 -0500
From: Tom Lane <tg*@sss.pgh.pa .us>
To: Bret Busby <br**@busby.net >
Cc: pg***********@p ostgresql.org, pg***********@p ostgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?

Bret Busby <br**@busby.net > writes:
Does PostgreSQL yet allow the user or programmer, to determine where the
database will be stored?


You speak as though you think that would be a good idea.

In my mind, "where the database is stored" is not a matter for users,
nor for programmers, but for DBAs --- that is, the grunts who have to
worry about backup policies and suchlike. This is not an issue that
should be exposed at the SQL-command level, and therefore it does not
concern either users or database programmers.

That's not to say that we don't have work to do here. There's
considerable interest in developing "tablespace " features to help the
DBA manage his problems. But I absolutely will not buy into any
suggestion that user foo's tables must be stored in user foo's home
directory (even if I thought that Postgres user foo must correspond
to a local Unix user foo ... which I don't ...)

regards, tom lane


This is where terminology becomes amusing.

I meant the OS user, not the DBMS user, and I am not suggesting that
DBMS users should be able to set where their tables are stored.

All kinds of scenarios can arise; where the DBA and the developer are
the same person, or, employed in the same department of the same
company; where the DBA is employed by the company, and the developer is
a contractor, or an employee of a contractor, and, as I previosuly
mentioned, the scenario where an ISP, by hosting a web site with a
database backend, has a database in the same holding area as is held all
the databases of all of the ISP's clients who similarly have web sites
with database backends.

I would feel more confident about having a personal database "on the
Internet"; a backend to my web site, if I knew that the database wasn't
thrown into the same storage area as everyone of the ISP's other account
holders, who also have the same DBMS database backends to their web
sites. You never know what else is sharing the same storage area, or how
safe your database is in there. It is a bit like having a cat; I would
rather that the cat is with me, and that I know where it is, and what is
happening with the cat, than having the cat locked away in a common room
for all cats. Also, using that analogy, if I decide to move away with my
cat, if it is with me, it is much simpler, and, cleaner, for me to
simply pick up the cat and take it with me, than to try to find all of
its bits, in a common room full of other cats. If I have a database
system hosted by an ISP, and I try to move it to another ISP, surely, it
would be simpler and cleaner, if I know that the database is stored in
or under my home directory with the ISP, than having the database stored
in a central repository with all of the other accounts holders'
databases.

There is also the issue of security, in the same context; I would feel
much more secure, with a database hosted by an ISP, if I could control
the privileges on the database directory, rather than allowing the ISP
the control. Having been a user on various UNIX systems, I have seen
some pretty lax security by systems administrators, and other users, and
I am reminded of a senior university computing lecturer, who had the
exam for an advanced computing unit, with such lax security that some
students wandering through the system, found the exam, and, when they
sat the exam, were surprisingly well prepared (no, I was not one of the
students), resulting in all the students in the unit, having to re-sit
the exam, and, other effects. A DBA should be able to control where a
database is stored, and the level of security applicable to where the
database is stored (privileges applicable to the directory, etc), and,
as I have previously mentioned, it can occur that the DBA and the
developer/programmer, are the same person.

As an example, on a personal basis, if I ever get the number of names in
my genealogy system, up to around 10,000, I would really want, if using
a database backend (which would, I believe, be required), to have
control over where the data is stored, so that I can easily and reliably
back it up, as such data can be unreplaceable, and can take decades to
accumulate.

Similarly, for commercial databases, now that DVD's are writable,
backing up a largish database, using OS backing up, would be much
better, and moreso, witth the data for a database, stored where it is
wanted.

I am not sure whether it can all be done with symbolic links, to place
PostgreSQL databases where a (OS, not DBMS) user or developer or DBA
wants them to be stored, but I suggest that provision should exist for a
person to determine where the person's (as owner of the database)
database file(s) exist, for security, backing up, etc.

--
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
...............

"So once you do know what the question actually is,
you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
Chapter 28 of
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
A Trilogy In Four Parts",
written by Douglas Adams,
published by Pan Books, 1992
............... ............... ............... ........
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postg resql.org

Nov 12 '05 #126

Just to poke fun at MySQl:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Bret Busby wrote:
...
It is alright for people in this thread, to say "But they are MySQL, and
MySQL is not as powerful as PostgreSQL, so who cares what advantages
there are in MySQL", but MySQL appears to be more mature, as it has
things like standardised, formalised, structured, training courses and
secrtifications , and, the "Teach Yourself MySQL in 21 Days" book, and
that series of books has set exercises, etc, to aid the learning,
...


I thought MySQL was supposed to be easy to install, admin and use, how come it
takes 21 days to learn it and needs formalised training courses?
--
Nigel

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postg resql.org

Nov 12 '05 #127
secrtifications , and, the "Teach Yourself MySQL in 21 Days" book, and
that series of books has set exercises, etc, to aid the learning,
...


I thought MySQL was supposed to be easy to install, admin and use, how come it
takes 21 days to learn it and needs formalised training courses?


Perhaps you didn't understand it correctly?

Perhaps because not everyone is intelligent enough to learn MySQL in less
then 21 days?

I don't know that particular book myself but the book MySQL written by Paul
DuBois took me much less then 21 days :-) I have yet to find a simular book
about PostgreSQL..

IMO there's no valid reason for MySQL bashing. I'm not going to defend
either one because that kind of discussion leads to nowhere.

B.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

Nov 12 '05 #128
a contractor, or an employee of a contractor, and, as I previosuly
mentioned, the scenario where an ISP, by hosting a web site with a
database backend, has a database in the same holding area as is held all
the databases of all of the ISP's clients who similarly have web sites
with database backends.
I have yet to see security issues from storing at the same place.
There is also the issue of security, in the same context; I would feel
much more secure, with a database hosted by an ISP, if I could control
the privileges on the database directory, rather than allowing the ISP
the control.
An ISP can grant you that priv:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/curre...sql-grant.html
Almost the same trick works with MySQL.
As an example, on a personal basis, if I ever get the number of names in
my genealogy system, up to around 10,000, I would really want, if using
a database backend (which would, I believe, be required), to have
control over where the data is stored, so that I can easily and reliably
back it up, as such data can be unreplaceable, and can take decades to
accumulate.
If you're running MySQL look at something like mysqldump. When running
PostgreSQL the information is here:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/backup.html
Similarly, for commercial databases, now that DVD's are writable,
backing up a largish database, using OS backing up, would be much
better, and moreso, witth the data for a database, stored where it is
wanted.
Most running databases wouldn't like it if the backup is created with
something like tar. IMO the best way is to use the tools provided with the
product. You can create a dump with whatever tool provided and write that
dump to CD-RW/DVD/whatever.
I am not sure whether it can all be done with symbolic links, to place
PostgreSQL databases where a (OS, not DBMS) user or developer or DBA
wants them to be stored, but I suggest that provision should exist for a
person to determine where the person's (as owner of the database)
database file(s) exist, for security, backing up, etc.


And then you hit the hard limit set by quota :-)
Even if you think you can do it yourself you will have to persuade your
ISP/admin/whatever to create a symbolic link (even if that would be
possible and what you want).

B.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

Nov 12 '05 #129
B. van Ouwerkerk wrote:
IMO there's no valid reason for MySQL bashing. I'm not going to defend
either one because that kind of discussion leads to nowhere.


How about pure entertainment? Or maybe because we don't have anything
better to do on a Friday night because the one girl this year who
actually said she would go out with us has stood us up? But were not
bitter at all at that slut and she uses MySQL I just no it, I bet she's
using it right now and laughing... LAUGHING at me...

See it can be very therapeutic :)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

Nov 12 '05 #130

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.