473,889 Members | 1,444 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
Regardless of the reasons, perception is reality. If we appear to be
disheveled then we are.

I would think that it should be possible to give the appearance of unity
without actually requiring a full time web-master?
Dave

On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 12:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote:
One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, one
doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as
interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc.


Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid webmaster that
has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to control
everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ...
>
Dave

On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote:

> I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to
> find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would
> expect it in the docs.

Like ... ?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: sc*****@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

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

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


----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: sc*****@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postg resql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postg resql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Nov 12 '05 #21
Jan Wieck (Friday 26 December 2003 10:02)
The strategy of misguiding people like "you don't need foreign keys", "you
don't need stored procedures", "yadda yadda triggers", "blah blah views"
didn't work forever.
PRECISELY my point! But so many ignorant users fall for this and babble on
saying the exact same thing when they come attacking you for choosing
PostgreSQL.

Vertu sŠll,

--
Sig■ˇr Bj÷rn Jar­arson (Casey Allen Shobe)
cs****@softhome .net / http://rivyn.livejournal.com
Jabber: si*****@jabber. org; ICQ: 1494523; AIM/Yahoo: SomeLinuxGuy

Free development contributor of: KDE toolbar icons
Kopete user interface, usability, and testing
X11 Icelandic Dvorak keymaps
Reporting of over 100 Kopete bugs


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

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

Nov 12 '05 #22
Chris Travers (Saturday 27 December 2003 06:44)
In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near or
long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists. Firebird
is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to
learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being as
easy to use as PostgreSQL.
It all depends on the user community. People thought Christianity was a joke
and would never be a serious threat to the pre-existing religions - look at
the state of things today :\.

You can blind yourselves to the users, but do this for long enough, and you'll
discover you don't have any users, no matter how great your product might be.

We live in a very strange world where people use what they see advertised the
most, or what the most of their friends have told them to use, instead of
doing actual research and making an educated decision. As a PostgreSQL user,
I've had to deal with at least 20-30 MySQL nazis telling me that *I'm* the
ignorant and accursed one, whereas I've met one guy who likes PostgreSQL.

But I do not think the database needs improvement...I MHO it's already quitea
lot better than MySQL. I think popular opinion needs to be less ignorant.
And I don't know how to suggest doing that.

P.S. What's this Firebird thing of which you speak? Is there now an
open-source DBMS with the same name as an open-source web browser? Uh-oh...

Vertu sŠll,

--
Sig■ˇr Bj÷rn Jar­arson (Casey Allen Shobe)
cs****@softhome .net / http://rivyn.livejournal.com
Jabber: si*****@jabber. org; ICQ: 1494523; AIM/Yahoo: SomeLinuxGuy

Free development contributor of: KDE toolbar icons
Kopete user interface, usability, and testing
X11 Icelandic Dvorak keymaps
Reporting of over 100 Kopete bugs


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

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

Nov 12 '05 #23
On Saturday 27 December 2003 20:24, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
P.S. What's this Firebird thing of which you speak? Is there now an
open-source DBMS with the same name as an open-source web browser?
Uh-oh...


Check http://firebird.sourceforge.net/

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

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

Nov 12 '05 #24
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!

John Sidney-Woollett

Chris Travers said:
Hi all,
Comments inline

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <sc*****@postgr esql.org>
To: "Chris Travers" <ch***@travelam ericas.com>
Cc: <as*******@hotp op.com>; <pg***********@ postgresql.org> ;
<pg***********@ postgresql.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote:
> 2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the
database manager. This slows their rate of development and we will
continue to move faster than them. This could be argued both ways, actually ... their model makes for less discussions on how to implement things ... they decide to implement it, do it and commit the code without having to worry about whether anyone else agrees with it ...
The flip side to this, of course, is the lack of input from other
developers who may (or may not) agree with how it is being implemented ...
Actually my concern here is something else. Open source is a very different software development methodology than proprietary software development is. Some time ago, in the MySQL manuals, I had actually see them claim that the larger development community of PostgreSQL was a bad thing.

See-- here is the problem: Open Source development is at its best when the core team, in addition to doing development, help to foster an environment whereby the project grows in community-driven ways. I am not sure that a close corporate control over an open source project will ever lead to optimal software because the software will end up stuck between worlds.
This is a major problem for some open source projects.
I have always been a firm believer that software can be either proprietary or open source, but that the two cannot be combined well into one for general purpose tools and platforms. I feel that this is the mistake that Caldera made which has lead to their fall from one of the leading distros to
the current situation where it is not even maintained anymore. In trying to
sell Linux as if it were a proprietary platform, they allowed Red Hat in particular to out-manuver them. This is the same problem that Trolltech and MySQL AB have today, for which UserLinux has decided to use GNOME instead of
KDE, and I would be surprised if people selling proprietary apps would choose MySQL over PostgreSQL.
Simply put my point is that software can be proprietary or open source, but projects which try to do both often end up losing out. I see MySQL as trying to do both.
As much as I like the idea of open sourse software, at this time, there is still a substantial market for proprietary applications, and although it may fade over time (and has already done so considerably), it is a market that must open source software must co-exist with rather than simply attempting to assimilate or trying to belong to both communities.. This is also why I
have argued that the GPL is intended for self-contained projects, of which MySQL is not, when you include the client libs.

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

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html



---------------------------(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 #25
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:54:28 +0530 Shridhar Daithankar <sh************ *****@myrealbox .com> wrote:
On Saturday 27 December 2003 20:24, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
P.S. What's this Firebird thing of which you speak? Is there now an
open-source DBMS with the same name as an open-source web browser?
Uh-oh...
Check http://firebird.sourceforge.net/


note that Firebird (the Interbase spinoff) used the name before
Firebird (the Mozilla spinoff) did.

richard
--
Richard Welty rw****@averillp ark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Nov 12 '05 #26
On 26 Dec 2003, 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 "complexiti es 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_surve...pachemods.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.

Cheers,

Chris

--
Christopher Murtagh
Enterprise Systems Administrator
ISR / Web Communications Group
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec
Canada

Tel.: (514) 398-3122
Fax: (514) 398-2017
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #27
>>>>> "John" == John Sidney-Woollett <jo****@wardbro ok.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. :)

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<me****@stonehe nge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge. com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.St onehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

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

Nov 12 '05 #28
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.

John Sidney-Woollett
Randal L. Schwartz said:
>> "John" == John Sidney-Woollett <jo****@wardbro ok.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. :)

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777
0095
<me****@stonehe nge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge. com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.St onehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl
training!

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

Nov 12 '05 #29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 27 December 2003 08:29 am, Christopher Murtagh wrote:
On 26 Dec 2003, 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 "complexiti es 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_surve...pachemods.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
UC

- --
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 2570 Fleetwood Drive
Phone: +1 650 872 2425 San Bruno, CA 94066
Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States
Fax: +1 650 872 2417
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/7c/vjqGXBvRToM4RAu PMAKC7XdErDIma9 Ey4GXqGnE4/ZVQPpwCeNx88
rZ3/Ji90E2cd2tTd9ly Sg3Y=
=s94v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------(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 #30

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.