On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:28:01PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Basically, it reduces the database to a place to throw data and get it
> back a little later. Everything else is client-side processing
Of course what you get back might well not be what you put in... :)
> So, back on the subject, does someone see a good advocacy opportunity
> here? I think many students would be able to help if we devised some
> ways to advocate PostgreSQL in that kind of environment without
> distracting from the main topics in the course.
>
> Basically, here's what I've got so far:
> (1) Make passive comments about PostgreSQL when appropriate, and mention
> the name "PostgreSQL". For example, if the professor asks a question
> that could be answered by "the PostgreSQL way".
> (2) I started work on a project a while ago to improve concurrent
> seqential scans of the same table. It works, but it needs testing and
> needs to be better integrated with PostgreSQL source conventions. I'll
> mention it to the professor and see if he's interested in helping me. If
> so, he's bound to gain some real respect for PostgreSQL.
These are good ideas, but I'd be a bit careful about promoting
PostgreSQL too heavily. I think it's far more important to enlighten
people about why MySQL (or any other database that does the things they
do) is unsound.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
