473,889 Members | 1,437 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
The native windows port is certainly useful for me.... when I was
developing for MySQL applications, I always ran a copy on my Windows
laptop which started as a service, and was most useful. I used to Rapid
Devel and prototype all of my DB apps this way.

Whilst I can (and do) run PG on my laptop, it not nearly as straight
forward, and when wanting to share my work with others at a conference,
trying to explain to them that they need to install Cygwin and IPC stuff
and then download PG then compile it, etc, etc. They usually lose
interest quickly.

When people want to try/play/prototype, installing Unix (many companies
still don't have spare, non-essential unix/linux boxen kicking around to
play with.

You don't understand the mindset behind the *yapping* MySQL users
because you DO understand PostgreSQL, because you appear to judge other
people by your own standards, instead of saying to yourself "There but
for the Grace of PostgreSQL Go I"

Try to understand that not everyone is blessed by your knowledge of PG,
or by your clarity of thought. It's easy to start throwing stones and
rocks at people, but I'm sure that we could all be criticised on our
choice of our software choices in one respect or another, since none of
us are beyond reproach, and we can't all be experts at everything.

The only reason that I'm making these points is that a few weeks ago I
thought the world was flat too, but a few people on this list took time
to explain to me with fact based points that the world was in fact
spherical and PG was a good thing.

How can you expect someone to understand why Nested Select staments are
good, if they ndo ot necessarilly understand what they might be good
for. In my experience, more than one time when investigating PG I had
a list of features MySQL lacked blurted at me without even considering
whether I understood what was being said. It may as well have been
Charlie Brown's Teacher talking to me ("whah whah, whah whah")

Remember Windows/MySQL users are Windows users usually for three
reasons: 1. They are blissfully ignorant of alternatives and don't know
any better. 2. Don't have the ability to be productive with the
alternatives, or don't have time to learn them (some people need to just
use computers without making them their lives) 3. Use laptops/PCs
provided by a work environment and must use Windows/MySQL because of
Tools, Programs, Applications and don't have the option to change.

Zealotry is not good in any form, whether it's pro or anti MySQL, PG,
Windows or whatever. Shouting about how another religion is bad doesn't
make your point of view sound any less fanatical.

I'll get off my soapbox now. But I was eventually convinced that PG was
good, and in turn I too have convinced a few MySQL users to take a
closer look at PG, that's how a community grows. Not with venom
spitting and name calling. I'm now a full card carrying member of
PostgreSQL, but fortunately never happened across any PG zealots during
my search.

Just my 2 cents. Flame away

Tony.
Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
Martin Marques (Friday 26 December 2003 14:11)

Windows native port might be out in the next release (name it 7.5 or 8.0),
with many other things there, and it should be out by fall of next year,
which is much earlier then 2 years. :-)


Great. But I really don't see how this makes the DBMS any better at all. So
what if there's a native Windows port? Nobody that I've ever met or talked
to uses MySQL on Windows anyways, and you can always use cygwin if you're
really desperate.

PostgreSQL is primarily an open-source database for open-source systems. If
somebody wants to use MySQL just because they can run it on Windows, I say
let them.

What I *do* see is a whole bunch of MySQL users running around yapping about
how great and fantastic and fast MySQL is and how crappy PostgreSQL is. I
really don't understand them, and they're impossible to reason with.

You can ask "Does MySQL support nested select statements? I use these every
day", and they respond with "You can just use MySQL's proprietary SQL
extensions to do the same thing another way; and MySQL is fast, too!".

I think about the same of these people as I do of people who rave about the
superiority of Windows, their chosen religion, or the country they live in -
underinforme d bigots.

From all that I've read in terms of power, flexibility, and features,
PostgreSQL is far ahead of MySQL. And I've yet to see even the slightest
speed issue with a properly designed database schema. Maybe MySQL is faster
with un-normalized tables, and that's why they like to say it's faster? I
don't know, but I really don't care if that's the case.

Vertu sŠll,


Nov 12 '05 #51
Sadly a company will believe anything that a consultant they trust tells
them. Otherwise there'd be little point in hiring a consultant to give
them advice would there?

It seems rather illogical that you'd refuse to work with a company that
had been given potentially sub-standard advice, based on what appears to
be a theological view?

Either that or you have more consulting work than you know what to do
with, that you can afford to base business decisions on an ideological
basis.

If I chose not to work with companies that used Windows as servers
(because IMHO, Windows is not a good server environment) my house
would've been repossessed, and I'd have probably starved by now.

T.
Keith C. Perry wrote:
The way I look at it is that I probably don't want to deal with a
company that thinks that MySQL on windows is "good environment".


Nov 12 '05 #52

On 28/12/2003 14:44 Tony wrote:
[snip]
This really rattled some peoples cages and I ended up defending PG
against some really ill thought out attacks. Like:

MySQL User: But can PG deal with really complicated joins.
Me: In many cases the extra functionality of PG avoids the problems
where really complicated joins would be needed in MySQL

MySQL User: But MySQL is fast, PG is not so fast.
Me: With PG you can move much of the functionality INTO the database
using stored procedures, these stored procedures will run faster than
interpreted PHP, therefore taking the load away from the webserver.

MySQL User: But my Apache/MySQL can handle squillions of hits/queries
etc, PG probably couldn't. Do you know any sites that have a lot of
traffic that use PG.
Me: 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 ;)

--
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller
Business |
| Computer Consultants |
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Nov 12 '05 #53
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...bu t I do explain exactly what I would use them
for, and the people who give me responses *know* why they're useful, because
they come up with a perfectly good alternative to use in MySQL (which works,
but isn't compliant to any standard but their own). Discussions like this
result from MySQL users trying to convert me to their platform, not the other
way around. I'm a believer in "use whatever you want". If you're
underinformed about your decision, that's your problem. Don't come forcing
it on me ;-).
1. They are blissfully ignorant of alternatives and don't know any better.
IMHO, these sorts of people don't need to be running PostgreSQL. If they've
got something they're happy with, more power to them. If they want to take
the blinders off and investigate alternatives, there's plenty of information
out there.
2. Don't have the ability to be productive with the alternatives or don't
have time to learn them (some people need to just use computers without
making them their lives)
Then they oughtn't be using the alternatives. These sorts of people should
use what they're used to. Why try to convert them to PostgreSQL from MySQL
if they're happy with it and resistant to change and learning?
3. Use laptops/PCs provided by a work environment and must use Windows/MySQL
because of Tools, Programs, Applications and don't have the option to
change.
And again, if their software is dictated by management and management has
given them MySQL, how is porting PostgreSQL to Windows going to help at all?
If anything, these three examples sound like reasons not to bother porting,
rather than encouragement to.
Zealotry is not good in any form, whether it's pro or anti MySQL, PG,
Windows or whatever. Shouting about how another religion is bad doesn't
make your point of view sound any less fanatical.


I agree completely. You'll note that I haven't said anything bad about MySQL
or Windows, even though I choose not to use either based on my own opinions..
What I have said is that porting PostgreSQL to Windows is an unwise time
investment, that open-source programs should focus on availability for
open-source platforms, and that people don't often run open-source databases
on Windows anyways (much more common is to see Access or Microsoft SQL). I
have stated the reasons *I* find PostgreSQL to be a better alternative to
MySQL, since that's the nature of this thread. I have *not* told you to go
and switch to it.

I think...you read my E-mail quite a bit differently than how I wrote it.

Vertu sŠll,

--
Sig■ˇr Bj÷rn Jar­arson (Casey Allen Shobe)
http://rivyn.livejournal.com

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

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

Nov 12 '05 #54
I've asked this before and I'll apologize now if there was a response but how
does http://gborg.postgresql.org NOT fill this.

Quoting Chris Travers <ch***@travelam ericas.com>:
Hi all;

The problem with trying to maintain an image of unity is that PostgreSQL is
moving in a direction of being sort of like a kernel. In this sense, we
already are unified. But regarding new types, client libs, etc. then unity
is neither necessary nor desirable IMO.

If that is something that some people see here as important, maybe they can
start their own PostgreSQL "distributions. " Maybe we can link to them via
the PostgreSQL advocacy site :-)

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Cramer" <pg@fastcrypt.c om>
To: "Robert Treat" <xz****@users.s ourceforge.net>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <sc*****@postgr esql.org>;
<pg***********@ postgresql.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 5:31 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?

Well, I'm not suggesting that we force them to do anything, just give
the appearance of unity, this should be possible with tools available,
no?

Dave
On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 16:57, Robert Treat wrote:
But your examples also lists things like interface libraries. For
postgresql to do that, we would have to pick specific interfaces
applications / libraries, then have them all centralize their
development/release process around the main distribution. If you can get
everyone to agree to this (and I recommend starting by picking the
official python interface), we can start down a unified path, but I
don't see it happening.

Robert Treat

On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 09:41, Dave Cramer wrote:
> Regardless of the reasons, perception is reality. If we appear to be
> disheveled then we are.
>
> I would think that it should be possible to give the appearance of unity > without actually requiring a full time web-master?
>
>
> Dave
>
> On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 12:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote:
> >
> > > One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, one > > > doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as
> > > interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc.
> >
> > Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid webmaster that > > has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to control > > everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ...
> >
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to > > > > > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would > > > > > expect it in the docs.
> > > >
> > > > Like ... ?
> > > >
> > > > ----
> > > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > > > > Email: 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 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

--
Keith C. Perry, MS E.E.
Director of Networks & Applications
VCSN, Inc.
http://vcsn.com

_______________ _______________ ______
This email account is being host by:
VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Nov 12 '05 #55
Martijn van Oosterhout (Sunday 28 December 2003 04:56)
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.


Ahh, I have seen those...but they're specific to psql, and if memory servesme
correct I wasn't able to use the variables within queries, either. I need
something I can use over ODBC (within a single transaction, of course).
These can sometimes solve problems that you can't seem to solve any other
way, and other times can improve query response time *greatly* (say, by
running a subquery once and assigning the result to a variable used 40 times
in the final statement instead of running 40 subqueries).

Take, for example, these query which I wrote in Transact-SQL for Microsoft
SQL. Yes, this was a horribly-formed database and the requests complex, but
it's something I had to deal with on a daily basis when I was still employed.

This example shows a scenario where I don't think I could even write the query
without the use of SQL variables:
http://199.72.170.146/~sigthor/docum...mple_query.txt

This example shows a scenario where the variables are re-used. In this
example, changing the original query to use variables instead reduced query
execution time from 40 seconds to 2:
http://199.72.170.146/~sigthor/docum...ple_query2.txt

(note for clarity that wherever [[blah]] appears in the SQL, this was replaced
by an actual value with PHP before execution)

So I guess my real question is, how can I address the same issues in
PostgreSQL?

Vertu sŠll,

--
Sig■ˇr Bj÷rn Jar­arson (Casey Allen Shobe)
http://rivyn.livejournal.com

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

Nov 12 '05 #56
Chris Travers (Sunday 28 December 2003 01:24)
With 7.4, PostgreSQL implements the standard information_sch ema 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_sch ema instead
wherever possible :-)


And this is the problem I discovered the hard way ;-).

Vertu sŠll,

--
Sig■ˇr Bj÷rn Jar­arson (Casey Allen Shobe)
http://rivyn.livejournal.com

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

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

Nov 12 '05 #57
Quoting Shridhar Daithankar <sh************ *****@myrealbox .com>:
On Sunday 28 December 2003 11:15, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
The only SQL customizations that MySQL has that I really miss in PostgreSQL
are the commands:

SHOW DATABASES;


\l
SHOW TABLES;


\dt
DESC table;


\d tablename

That was ubber simple to do in MySQL. To this day, I have trouble with
that in PostgreSQL. I'm constantly doing:

psql> \?
psql> help;
ERROR: syntax error at or near "help" at character 1
psql> \h
...
* damnit, that's not it...*
psql> \?
psql> \d
* ok, now which flag do I use for tables vs functions..etc? *


\df for functions and \dt for tables.

Problem is psql is unique though very powerful. I need to use oracle's
sql-plus on HP-UX at times(Otherwise I crawl back to TOAD) and I don't think

it is nowhere near to psql.

or may be I play with postgresql more than oracle..:-) anyways
I finally figure it out, I just end up forgetting again later. I still
have no clue how I'd find the same data without using psql. In MySQL
I can run those queries from PHP, PERL...etc. I know you can find that
data in system tables in PostgreSQL, but I don't wanna muck around with
all that. I just wanna do something as simple as MySQL.


Well, actually I would say it is great way of learning postgresql internals.

There is a switch -E to psql which shows you queries sent to server for each

command you provide.

Problem with mysql is the approach is easy to start with but adding those
command in your standard list of SQL commands falls out on standard
compliance and maintainability .

Another post on this thread mentioned postgresql should run against oracle.
Sole reason postgresql v/s mysql debate should exist is to provide
comparision in feasibility study. The hurdles you mentioned are true but that

are just part of bit steeper learning curve of a standard way of doing
things..

Shridhar


This is what I don't get. Why do people thing learn PG is going to be like
learning MySQL in the first place? Because its OSS?? I certainly hope not.
This is apples to oranges.

I read someone say the documentation was "light" too. I'm not sure what that
meant but I looked for at the 3 inch doubled side binded of my 7.3.2 docs-
admin,user &,programmer- its as big as my J2EE binder.
Not very scientific I know :)
Seriously though, when people indicate PG is "hard", I hear, "if it was easy
everone would be doing it".

-$0.02

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

--
Keith C. Perry, MS E.E.
Director of Networks & Applications
VCSN, Inc.
http://vcsn.com

_______________ _______________ ______
This email account is being host by:
VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com

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

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

Nov 12 '05 #58
Quoting Tony <to**@unihost.n et>:
Sadly a company will believe anything that a consultant they trust tells
them. Otherwise there'd be little point in hiring a consultant to give
them advice would there?
There are different levels of trust and in addition sometimes consultants are
used for feasibility studies- "how would you do this?" If you're telling me
you've never been in a situation where a client called you in because they want
to implement a project with certain products or other specification because they
have "done the research and want to proceed this way" then I'm very glad to hear
that. No matter how much you are trusted as a consultant or technical advisor
you are still just a guide. That means it is possible for your client is "wander
off the path". I remember in the not so long ago days when people wanted to run
certain hardware or software because to not do so would give the perception that
you were not up to par. Sometimes what is used has nothing to do with using the
best product for the job. That seems to be a sub-text of this thread.
It seems rather illogical that you'd refuse to work with a company that
had been given potentially sub-standard advice, based on what appears to
be a theological view?
I'm sure the MySQL folks don't think they are sub-standard. A fair amount of my
business is "clean up" so if someone said, "we have an app on MySQL that is not
working for us" I would most definitely be interested. If someone said to me
what DB do I use to build applications, I would say PG. If then someone says to
me that "well we're a MySQL shop" then I would have to hear more because
depending on what they want to do, I might not take on that project. There is
nothing illogical or theological in that.
Either that or you have more consulting work than you know what to do
with, that you can afford to base business decisions on an ideological
basis.
This really doesn't make sense. Are you telling me you are going to accept any
an all work regardless of competency and confidence in that product? Would you
really build a financial application on MySQL? We both know that we all have a
certain ideology (read: religion) when it comes to our trade. To be clear, I'm
not saying anything against someone who would use MySQL for a financial app.
I'm just saying that I would not (or at least try very hard not to) involve
myself in that project or any other project where I thought there was a bad
design or implementation.

When you are a smaller operation your reputation is going to weigh in a lot more
than a larger company. I do not want my name to be tied to something
sub-standard. If a consultant values his or her reputation I don't see how you
can NOT consider what products you are willing to put your name on the line for.
If I chose not to work with companies that used Windows as servers
(because IMHO, Windows is not a good server environment) my house
would've been repossessed, and I'd have probably starved by now.

T.
12 years ago calling myself a consultant one day meant putting in a netware 3.11
server for a bunch of PCs and MACs and pulling coax. Did I want to do that- I
can't really say because at the time I had to eat. That for me is on the outer
fringes of this thread. Few organzations are NOT using Windows somewhere, and
an increasing number of organizations are starting understand OSS solutions. So
both world are merging so it not about avoiding and one thing. Its about
picking an choosing your battles.

Keith C. Perry wrote:
The way I look at it is that I probably don't want to deal with a
company that thinks that MySQL on windows is "good environment".

--
Keith C. Perry, MS E.E.
Director of Networks & Applications
VCSN, Inc.
http://vcsn.com

_______________ _______________ ______
This email account is being host by:
VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com

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

Nov 12 '05 #59
Quoting Gaetano Mendola <me*****@bigfoo t.com>:
Chris Travers wrote:
Regarding the importance of PostgreSQL on Windows.

For example, I am developing a hotel reservation management application
using Python and PostgreSQL (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openres). This
will only run on Linux and UNIX, so in order to get this to run on

Windows,
I need to use either MySQL or Firebird. Or aI can require Cygwin. But

that
is a bit over the top IMO, for a small hotel or B&B to consider,

especially
because I want to run it if possible on existing equipment to keep
implimentation costs down.


Who cares about where the GUI must run?


Chris and his client-
May you please explain me why the GUI must be on the same DB server?
After all is better have the user's hand far away from the datas.
If its a small hotel or B&B I would think an addtional workstation might be cost
prohibitive. Then again, that might simply be the way they want it.

Regards
Gaetano Mendola

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

http://archives.postgresql.org

--
Keith C. Perry, MS E.E.
Director of Networks & Applications
VCSN, Inc.
http://vcsn.com

_______________ _______________ ______
This email account is being host by:
VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com

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

Nov 12 '05 #60

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.