By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,852 Members | 2,259 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,852 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Is my MySQL Gaining ?

P: n/a
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 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
175 Replies


P: n/a
El Vie 26 Dic 2003 11:09, Sai Hertz And Control Systems escribió:
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.


1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around.....
lets say 2 years maybe?
2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, and
are getting optimized every new release.

--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | mm******@unl.edu.ar
Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telemática
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
Martin Marques wrote:
El Vie 26 Dic 2003 11:09, Sai Hertz And Control Systems escribió:
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.

1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around.....
lets say 2 years maybe?
2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, and
are getting optimized every new release.


Well, let's consolidate few points so as to save us some energy.

1. As a open source project, competition is no threat to postgresql. If mysql is
gaining, fine for that that community.

2. Mysql has long way to go to be on par with postgresql. The differences are
known and wildly documented. Meanwhile postgresql project will continue to fix
bugs, add features and attempt to be better with every next release. Of course,
this is business as usual.

3. If mysql works for you and is the best tool for the job, use it. but don't
forget to evaluate latest postgresql release at least once an year.

I think that covers most of the sensible points that can come up in such a
discussion..What say?

Shridhar


---------------------------(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 #3

P: n/a
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!
--
Ken Harris
Senior Consultant
http://www.lhinfo.com
(410) 597-8916

Quoting Martin Marques <ma****@bugs.unl.edu.ar>:
El Vie 26 Dic 2003 11:09, Sai Hertz And Control Systems escribió:
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.


1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around.....
lets say 2 years maybe?
2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, and

are getting optimized every new release.

--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | mm******@unl.edu.ar
Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telemática
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

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

Nov 12 '05 #4

P: n/a
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?
Jan

--
#================================================= =====================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================= = Ja******@Yahoo.com #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Nov 12 '05 #5

P: n/a
Dear Martin Marques,
What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection.


1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around.....
lets say 2 years maybe?
2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, and
are getting optimized every new release.

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.

NOTE :
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.

Regards,
Vishal Kashyap.
---------------------------(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 #6

P: n/a
> 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.

NOTE :
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.

Regards,
Vishal Kashyap.


All this time complaining about how popular MySQL is would be better spend
to make the docs more clear. I have talked about this before..

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.

Most will stick with what they know instead of taking many many hours to
investigate what it takes to developer with PG as database.

B.

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

Nov 12 '05 #7

P: n/a
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, 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 ...

----
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*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Nov 12 '05 #8

P: n/a
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

Nov 12 '05 #9

P: n/a
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.

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

Nov 12 '05 #10

P: n/a
Dear Jan Wieck ,
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.


Thats very well said
I never thought of this. Now I have a tool to bash my peers who are
tilted toward MySQL .
Let's see them when they're done, okay?


Joining you :-)

Regards ,
Vishal Kashyap
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Nov 12 '05 #11

P: n/a
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*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Nov 12 '05 #12

P: n/a
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html

Does this concern anyone.

Well from one perspective MySQL is still playing catch up. While they
are adding
features that they still don't have stable OR that are labelled "Basic
Support", PostgreSQL
has had mature support for a long time.

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

Yes and know. USP is great, but we can argue (and will be able to for a
LONG LONG TIME) that,
"Sure mySQL can do that... sort of."


What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection.
It is never good to be placid in the industry but I think you will
continue to see PostgreSQL growth.
I get phone calls weekly from people who have come to realize that MySQL
is just a toy.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

Regards,
Vishal Kashyap.

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

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

--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com

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

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

Nov 12 '05 #13

P: n/a
>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Wieck <Ja******@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?

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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Nov 12 '05 #14

P: n/a
El Vie 26 Dic 2003 13:18, Sai Hertz And Control Systems escribió:
Dear Martin Marques,
What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection.


1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around......
lets say 2 years maybe?
2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, and are getting optimized every new release.

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.


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. :-)

--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | mm******@unl.edu.ar
Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telemática
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Nov 12 '05 #15

P: n/a
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.

In another vein, PHP has added the features as their market
has required them. Yes Perl has more features that PHP but
so what?

PHP works for those who use it. MySQL works for those who
use it.

That I believe is the fundamental problem with PostgreSQL
vs. MySQL. They are different products:

MS Access is a database
MSSQL is a database

Both have SQL capabilities...

Which one would you run for your accounting system?
O.k. I wouldn't run MSSQL for an accounting system either
but I think my point is made...

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake
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?


--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com

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

Nov 12 '05 #16

P: n/a
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.

Best WIshes,
Chris Travers
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #17

P: n/a
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 ...
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 ...

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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Nov 12 '05 #18

P: n/a
Hi all,
Comments inline

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <sc*****@postgresql.org>
To: "Chris Travers" <ch***@travelamericas.com>
Cc: <as*******@hotpop.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

Nov 12 '05 #19

P: n/a
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.

Vertu sæll,

--
Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (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 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #20

P: n/a
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*******@postgresql.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*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Nov 12 '05 #21

P: n/a
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 sæll,

--
Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (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

P: n/a
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...IMHO 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 sæll,

--
Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (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

P: n/a
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

P: n/a
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*****@postgresql.org>
To: "Chris Travers" <ch***@travelamericas.com>
Cc: <as*******@hotpop.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

P: n/a
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****@averillpark.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

P: n/a
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 "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_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

P: n/a
>>>>> "John" == John Sidney-Woollett <jo****@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. :)

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

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

Nov 12 '05 #28

P: n/a
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****@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. :)

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

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

Nov 12 '05 #29

P: n/a
-----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 "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_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/vjqGXBvRToM4RAuPMAKC7XdErDIma9Ey4GXqGnE4/ZVQPpwCeNx88
rZ3/Ji90E2cd2tTd9lySg3Y=
=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

P: n/a
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.


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

Nov 12 '05 #31

P: n/a
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
>


--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

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

Nov 12 '05 #32

P: n/a
22**************@ganymede.hub.org><006201c3cc6f$77830fe0$93285e3d@winxp><229
7.********************************@m...ardbro ok.com>
<86************@blue.stonehenge.com>
<30***********************************@mercury.war dbrook.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: floppy.pyrenet.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: floppy.pyrenet.fr 1072563146 20740 194.250.190.2 (27 Dec 2003 22:12:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab***@pyrenet.fr
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:12:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: pg***********@floppy.pyrenet.fr
X-Delivered-To: pg***********@floppy.pyrenet.fr
X-Received: from server.pyrenet.fr (server.pyrenet.fr [194.250.190.1])
by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A7B521C42
for <pg***********@floppy.pyrenet.fr>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:12:26 +0100 (MET)
X-Received: by server.pyrenet.fr (Postfix)
id E5D3E27C95; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:12:25 +0100 (MET)
X-Delivered-To: pg***********@pyrenet.fr
X-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by localhost.pyrenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7EE27C93
for <pg***********@pyrenet.fr>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:12:25 +0100 (MET)
X-Received: from server.pyrenet.fr ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (server [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
id 07090-01 for <pg***********@pyrenet.fr>;
Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:12:24 +0100 (MET)
X-Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (floppy.pyrenet.fr [194.250.190.2])
by server.pyrenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 145F727C81
for <pg***********@pyrenet.fr>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:12:24 +0100 (MET)
X-Received: from postgresql.org (svr1.postgresql.org [200.46.204.71])
by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP
id B4BC821C42; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:12:22 +0100 (MET)
X-Original-To: pg**************************@localhost.postgresql. org
X-Received: from localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2])
by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id F0324D1B472; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:12:14 +0000 (GMT)
X-Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 90104-05; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:11:28 -0400 (AST)
X-Received: from bramble.mmrd.com (unknown [65.217.53.66])
by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id A474AD1B432; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:10:45 -0400 (AST)
X-Received: from thorn.mmrd.com (thorn.mmrd.com [172.25.10.100])
by bramble.mmrd.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBRLQIcM009239;
Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:26:18 -0500
X-Received: from gnvex001.mmrd.com (gnvex001.mmrd.com [192.168.3.55])
by thorn.mmrd.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRMAQl10092;
Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:10:26 -0500
X-Received: from camel.mmrd.com ([172.25.5.213]) by gnvex001.mmrd.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72)
id XT878V5Q; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:10:23 -0500
X-To: jo****@wardbrook.com
X-Cc: "Randal L. Schwartz" <me****@stonehenge.com>,
Chris Travers <ch***@travelamericas.com>,
"Marc G. Fournier" <sc*****@postgresql.org>, as*******@hotpop.com,
pg***********@postgresql.org,
"pg***********@postgresql.org" <pg***********@postgresql.org>
X-In-Reply-To: <30***********************************@mercury.war dbrook.com>
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Mailing-List: pgsql-general
X-Precedence: bulk
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at pyrenet.fr
Xref: intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com comp.databases.postgresql.general:50997

On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 13:26, 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.

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---------------------------(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 #33

P: n/a
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*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Nov 12 '05 #34

P: n/a
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.

Best WIshes,
Chris Travers
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Nov 12 '05 #35

P: n/a
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.com>
To: "Robert Treat" <xz****@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <sc*****@postgresql.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*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

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

Nov 12 '05 #36

P: n/a

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Murtagh" <ch*****************@mcgill.ca>
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....

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
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

---------------------------(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 #37

P: n/a
I am not sure if my previous email was sent, so I am trying again.

From: "Casey Allen Shobe" <cs****@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...

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

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

Nov 12 '05 #38

P: n/a
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.

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

http://archives.postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #39

P: n/a
Sorry to jump into this late but I just had to commment...

Quoting John Sidney-Woollett <jo****@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.

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

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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@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 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Nov 12 '05 #40

P: n/a
> 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.

Dante

----------
D. Dante Lorenso
da***@lorenso.com


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

http://archives.postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #41

P: n/a
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 ;-).

Vertu sæll,

--
Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe)
http://rivyn.livejournal.com

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

Nov 12 '05 #42

P: n/a
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 02:42:20AM -0500, 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.

--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kl*****@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ (... have gone from d-i being barely usable even by its developers
anywhere, to being about 20% done. Sweet. And the last 80% usually takes
20% of the time, too, right?) -- Anthony Towns, debian-devel-announce


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE/7oz4Y5Twig3Ge+YRAu4kAJwNBr0VnEGskQKDqgdtcUF3lZHx3A Cgtzcs
IGyvuGd6ZfEhvZ/6qQXgVKI=
=T3Jy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Nov 12 '05 #43

P: n/a
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.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
Nov 12 '05 #44

P: n/a
>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.

John Sidney-Woollett

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

Nov 12 '05 #45

P: n/a
Martijn van Oosterhout (Sunday 28 December 2003 02:57)
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...

Vertu sæll,

--
Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe)
http://rivyn.livejournal.com

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

http://archives.postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #46

P: n/a
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 04:29:56AM -0500, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout (Sunday 28 December 2003 02:57)
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 isno
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.


Do you happen to have a link to documentation? If these aren't new, thenI've
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/curre.../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.

Hope this helps,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kl*****@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ (... have gone from d-i being barely usable even by its developers
anywhere, to being about 20% done. Sweet. And the last 80% usually takes
20% of the time, too, right?) -- Anthony Towns, debian-devel-announce


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE/7qi3Y5Twig3Ge+YRAknmAJ40C5r+/LIVeCCxCZASW4zfHKirdwCgqtkC
BCPSLkNo49ow+rCVBzgNz1M=
=wqEI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Nov 12 '05 #47

P: n/a

On 28/12/2003 08:47 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 :)

--
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 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

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

Nov 12 '05 #48

P: n/a

On 28/12/2003 01:57 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.
--
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 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to ma*******@postgresql.org)

Nov 12 '05 #49

P: n/a
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.

Just My 2 Cents

Tony

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.


Nov 12 '05 #50

175 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.