Postgress and MYSQL

[Bob Powell]

To whom it may concern:

I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. I continue to see
articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for development an
open_source web database.

Why isn't PostgreSQL being considered or talked about by major industry
giants? As a DBA I know that Postgres is far superior to MYSQL but if
the industry directs it's energies towards open-source database this
coming year I think somehow PostgreSQL needs to be represented better.
Bob Powell
---------------------------(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

[John Sidney-Woollett]

Bob Powell said:

I continue to see articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for
development an open_source web database.

Why would IBM use and promote postgres when it is much closer an offering
to DB2 than MySQL, and a much bigger commercial threat?

I'll bet that IBM will be planning on a nice migration path from the
open-source-web-db to DB2...

John Sidney-Woollett

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

[Tom Lane]

"Bob Powell" <Bo*@hotchkiss. org> writes:

I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention.

You are seeing the effects of MySQL AB's large marketing budget;
they have the time and money to cause such articles to appear.
I'm not sure there is much we can do to counter this in the short run.
(I do wonder how quickly they are running through that $19 mil
investment though ...)

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(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

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tg*@sss.pgh.pa .us> writes:

Tom> "Bob Powell" <Bo*@hotchkiss. org> writes:

I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention.

Tom> You are seeing the effects of MySQL AB's large marketing budget;
Tom> they have the time and money to cause such articles to appear.
Tom> I'm not sure there is much we can do to counter this in the short run.
Tom> (I do wonder how quickly they are running through that $19 mil
Tom> investment though ...)

My new buzz-meme (pass it along)...

"You're still using MySQL... that's sooooo 90's!"

:-)

Seriously, the space occupied by MySQL has been encroached by SQLite
from the low end (if you just want SQL access to a data file,
including transactions) and PostgreSQL from the high end (when you
want a full-featured database). I think they've completely overlapped
at this point (especially when I just discovered yesterday that you
can register Perl callbacks for user-defined functions and aggregates
in DBD::SQLite!), so MySQL really doesn't have much of a win at either
end.

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - [phone]
<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 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

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

[Marc G. Fournier]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

"Bob Powell" <Bo*@hotchkiss. org> writes:

I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention.

You are seeing the effects of MySQL AB's large marketing budget;
they have the time and money to cause such articles to appear.
I'm not sure there is much we can do to counter this in the short run.
(I do wonder how quickly they are running through that $19 mil
investment though ...)

Let's see if they can beat GB? *evil grin*
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: sc*****@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

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

[Joshua D. Drake]

(I do wonder how quickly they are running through that $19 mil
investment though ...)
Let's see if they can beat GB? *evil grin*

I seriously doubt they will be a GB... MySQL is at least making money
(probably not profit though).
They have a huge, loyal following and presumably a decent size customer
base.

GB had none of this.

MySQL will probably be around a long, long time.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

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

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

--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
[phone] - jd@commandpromp t.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

[Christopher Browne]

After a long battle with technology, Bo*@hotchkiss.o rg ("Bob Powell"), an earthling, wrote:

To whom it may concern:

I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. I continue to see
articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for development an
open_source web database.

Why isn't PostgreSQL being considered or talked about by major industry
giants? As a DBA I know that Postgres is far superior to MYSQL but if
the industry directs it's energies towards open-source database this
coming year I think somehow PostgreSQL needs to be represented better.

For IBM, in particular, it would be hugely counterproducti ve to point
people to something that might take away from the sales of their own
products. After all, they bought Informix and Universe, and developed
DB/2. There's presumably some money in the latter.

Furthermore, there's presumably some money in getting people to adopt
a product that has rudimentary support for what they need, and then,
when scalability proves troublesome, migrate them to DB/2.

Mind you, as the recent changes to the licensing and marketing of
MySQL AB get better known, it is also possible that IBM would
(correctly) perceive them as competition (irrespective of technical
merits), and either demand money for promoting the product, or cease
promoting it.
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrow ne> rate me
http://cbbrowne.com/info/nonrdbms.html
"very few people approach me in real life and insist on proving they
are drooling idiots." -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp

[Anton.Nikiforov]

Hello Bob!
Everybody knows that PostgreSQL is better than MySQL and supports more
features etc. But remember - the main issue of database systems now is
web that is being build mainly by students that do not even know what
database engines are made for. At least here (My second job is
Instructor in Unix/Linux/etc.) and i know that the main thing that is
required by students is Linux with apache and MySQL. And the strange
thing - students are always starting learning from Network
Administration or Linux in Enterprise course, but real administrators
who is working with systems for 10-15 years are starting from
Introduction into unix systems.
Here in Russia almost all web design companies using MySQL, on all
hosting systems owners asking to install MySQL for their users etc.
MySQL is everywhere.
So, who will work with PG? Only people registered here :)) Maybe a few
more. So it is normal that MySQL beats PG on the market.
I have Oracle, PostgreSQL servers, used to work with DB2 on AS/400 and
personaly i know that PG is better than MySQL. But who will tell it to
students who saw a computer twice and already think that they are
administrators? :))))
Please do not kill me for this post - i like PG and working with
PG and developing for PG, i was talking just about what happening
around. To make PG known there should be more and more products that
relay on PG. And this should be not Banking or other mission critical
projects. It should be a simple forums, picture bases i do not know
what but the things that should be installable for 3 minutes and
working for years. Otherwise if PG is positioning itself as a DB
system for huge and mission critical tasks - nobody here should think
about MySQL that was simple and will be simple when PG is being
installed for tasks where MySQL will never work and nobody will ever
think it will.

Regards,
Anton

BP> To whom it may concern:

BP> I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
BP> disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. I continue to see
BP> articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for development an
BP> open_source web database.

BP> Why isn't PostgreSQL being considered or talked about by major industry
BP> giants? As a DBA I know that Postgres is far superior to MYSQL but if
BP> the industry directs it's energies towards open-source database this
BP> coming year I think somehow PostgreSQL needs to be represented better.
BP> Bob Powell
BP> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
BP> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
BP> subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postg resql.org so that your
BP> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

[Dustin Sallings]

On Jan 14, 2004, at 0:08, An************* @loteco.ru wrote:

around. To make PG known there should be more and more products that
relay on PG. And this should be not Banking or other mission critical
projects. It should be a simple forums, picture bases i do not know

This is very insightful. mySQL is not popular in the enterprise
because it's known to solve big problems, but because it's known to
solve little ones. It seems so wrong, but makes so much sense.

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

[Matt Davies]

I have to agree. In my experience the average database user out there does not
need the entire functionality of something like Oracle. It is because of this
that I have used MySQL for many years now.

In this light (please accept my confession as to being a more prolific MySQL
user), I am becoming more converted to Postgress. I am very impressed with the
full features of PG, but I have noticed some things that will make PG more
useful out of the box.

1. Replication: Like it or not most people regard their data and access to their
data as 'invaluable'. If not, why are they storing it. Having a secondary
server (read slaves) on which you can perform backups, load balance RO traffic,
and eventually use as a failover has been one of the great selling points of
MySQL for my specific applications. I wish there were a Master-Master
replication scheme out there, but that is not the case.

2. Documentation: In delving deeper into the Postgress database I have tried to
find whatever I can to learn more. I have found an Oreilly book out there, but
the TOC reads almost the exact same as the online documentation. I ask myself -
have they lifted the documentation and are now trying to sell me it bound in
book form? MySQL did the same for a while, but it was the other books- problem
solving, examples, programming, etc.. that really helped MySQL adoption IMO.

MySQL marketing has done much to help the average database user out there feel
like they are getting a powerful and feature-rich database. The average user
out there is doing nothing more than address books and recipe books. They,
however, __THINK__ they are real DBA's because MySQL is happy to lead them to
believe that. Having them evangelize the database is like gold. There is no
barrier-to-entry (read cash!!!) to MySQL (or Postgress for that matter) that
requires business case analysis and hiring of trained professionals to run the
database.

I see a trend of "DBA's", "Network Admin's", "** Admins'"(fill in blank) out
there that lack a fundamental understanding of how a computer works and how you
make it work for you, not the other way around. I scoff at most training
centers that sit you in front of a terminal (maintained by them) and teach you
everything you need to know in 20 days for $1200. They lack the understanding
of how I/O works, CPU & caching, ... They know one thing, but they __THINK__
they are the master.

I have ranted about this for a point. It is not what the seasoned 20 year UNIX
veteran knows about a database/OS that really matters in terms of adoption - it
is what the general mass of people __THINKS__ matters. They are becoming ever
present in high levels of decision making functions. Perception is the key.

My $0.02.


Quoting Dustin Sallings <du****@spy.net >:

On Jan 14, 2004, at 0:08, An************* @loteco.ru wrote:

around. To make PG known there should be more and more products that
relay on PG. And this should be not Banking or other mission critical
projects. It should be a simple forums, picture bases i do not know

This is very insightful. mySQL is not popular in the enterprise
because it's known to solve big problems, but because it's known to
solve little ones. It seems so wrong, but makes so much sense.

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

---------------------------(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