Re: Postgress and MYSQL - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Matt Davies
Subject Re: Postgress and MYSQL
Date
Msg-id 1074104285.400587dd0f83c@www.mattdavies.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Postgress and MYSQL  (Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>)
Responses Re: Postgress and MYSQL  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Re: Postgress and MYSQL  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Re: Postgress and MYSQL  (Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>)
List pgsql-general
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 <dustin@spy.net>:

>
> On Jan 14, 2004, at 0:08, Anton.Nikiforov@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
>




pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Doug McNaught
Date:
Subject: Re: serverless postgresql
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgress and MYSQL