Thread: What can we learn from MySQL?
Here is a blog about a recent MySQL conference with title, "Why MySQL
Grew So Fast":
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4715
and a a Slashdot discussion about it:
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/20/2229212&mode=nested&tid=137&tid=185&tid=187&tid=198
My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is
anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question.
Questions I have are:
o Are we marketing ourselves properly?
o Are we focused enough on ease-of-use issues?
o How do we position ourselves against a database that some
say is "good enough" (MySQL), and another one that some
say is "too much" (Oracle)
o Are our priorities too technically driven?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: > My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is > anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. MySQL was my first introduction to SQL databases (I had dabbled with Clipper and Foxpro years earlier, but only for a couple of months and had forgotten most of it by then). So practically all I knew about SQL and RDBMS I got from the MySQL manual. IIRC, MySQL has a chapter for beginners, on how to create your first database and tables, how to insert a record, etc. I see that the Pg manual already has that. Good. The problem is that, since MySQL was my only SQL database I knew for a long time, I didn't know that an RDBMS can be [much] more than what MySQL was/is. I could only do simple SELECTs (no JOINs, let alone subselect since MySQL doesn't support it) but found it sufficient, since I did most of the hard work from Perl/PHP (for example, doing an adjacency tree query by several SELECTs and combining the results myself from the client side). I didn't know squat about stored procedures or triggers or check constraints. I had no idea what a foreign key is -- and when MySQL manual says it's not necessary, slow, and evil, I believed it. I never bothered checking out other databases until I started reading more about transactions, reliability, Date/Codd, and other more theoretical stuffs. Only then I started trying out Interbase, Firebird, SAPDB, DB2, Oracle, and later Pg. So in my opinion, as long as the general awareness about RDBMS (on what tasks/responsibilities it should do, what features it generally has to have, etc) is low, people will be looking at MySQL as "good enough" and will not be motivated to look around for something better. As a comparison, I'm always amazed by people who use Windows 95/98/Me. They find it normal/"good enough" that the system crashes every now and then, has to be rebooted every few hours (or every time they install something). They don't know of anything better. So perhaps the direction of advocacy should be towards increasing that awareness? -- dave
> My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is > anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. > > Questions I have are: I have already told Bruce at length about the single most common complaint in the phpPgAdmin lists and in the IRC channel: the inability to change column types. I think we should listen to the punters on that one. Also, how about a new section in the manual: PostgreSQL for MySQL users and PostgreSQL for Oracle users? Chris
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 21:09, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is
> anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question.
>
One common thing people talk about is ease of use. However that puzzles
me, since it takes all of (about) three commands to install postgresql
and log into the database for the first time. I use debian, so it
amounts to "apt-get install", su to "postgres" and "psql template1".
I suspect some of the difficulties lie in how distributions of linux (a
large part of the pg user base) present postgres.
Postgres is a server system, and the only real interface it provides is
SQL, and "CREATE TABLE" and other simple commands are the same as in
MySQL. How can it be easier to use?
I think debian does a great job, do other distros make it so easy?
Here are some ideas at the distribution level:
o Ask a question during install to create a database other than
template0 and template1.
o If it's a GUI-based distro, install and lauch pgadmin3 and
provide some icons.
o If it's a GUI distro, lauch a browser to a special tutorial
at the distributors website so that users can see instantly
how to start doing things without going through the install
instructions or instructions about how to create a new
database. It should show pgadmin3 and show how to execute
queries (and provide the same simple examples you see in any
SQL tutorial), and then later show how to use psql from the
command line.
o If it's being installed from the command line, maybe have a
final question "Launch PgSQL quickstart?" that would run a
script to provide instructions interactively, like saying
"Now type createdb ... this will make a starting database",
"now type psql ...", "now type CREATE TABLE ...".
o If you look at windows packages, even servers, there's always
an interface to click on and then "browse around". This
interface detects the fact that something is installed and
allows you to administer it somehow.
Those are just ideas. MySQL doesn't do any of that, so I can't really
see how people say it's easier.
One very legitimate concern is the PostgreSQL site's search
functionality. I really like php.net, and I think MySQL tries to make
their website like PHP's. That requires manpower, and we've already
discussed that on this list.
Overall, I think that the PostgreSQL project has done everything very
well. It compiles very nicely and provides a lot of tools. Beyond that,
we just need adoption from application developers, distributions who
spend more time making PostgreSQL easy to use, and ISPs.
I don't know what you mean by "too technically driven". I guess the
release process of postgresql isn't very marketing friendly. Often what
happens with development being as open as it is here, is that people get
excited about a set of new features, and not all of them make it in to
the next release. From the outside it looks like postgres is slow and
not providing many new features. Maybe we should throw old features into
the press release just to remind people that postgres has had the
features for years :) (i.e. "7.5 has native win32 support, and yes, it
still has foreign keys and stored procedures, and yes, they even work in
win32!" might work, assuming of course that win32 is ready for release
at that time).
Regards,
Jeff Davis
> I have already told Bruce at length about the single most common
> complaint in the phpPgAdmin lists and in the IRC channel: the inability
> to change column types. I think we should listen to the punters on that
> one.
>
Maybe a simple and less dangerous option would be to add a column of the
new type, rename the old column and hide it, and select from the old
column and cast it to the new column? Is that a feasible implementation?
If I really need to change a column, that's what I'd do.
It's certainly less dangerous than MySQL. I remember a horror story
watching my column silently cast itself to a bunch of blank values in
MySQL. In postgres you'd just be able to undo it or fix the problem
since the data is still there. I also understand that MySQL has to copy
the entire table or something insane like that, so we could use the
opportunity to brag about how much more efficient we are for large
tables.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
> I think debian does a great job, do other distros make it so easy? On Mac OS X, there's Marc Liyanage's binary package, which is about as simple as it gets to install. But PostgreSQL also compiles pretty nicely out of the box. So I think it is really more a question of being known and known in a good light. Also on Mac OS X Server, MySQL is included by default. Has anyone tried to lobby Apple about including PostgreSQL too? Cheers. --------------- Francois Home page: http://www.monpetitcoin.com/ "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell
Karel Zak wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:05:21PM +0700, David Garamond wrote:
>
>>So in my opinion, as long as the general awareness about RDBMS (on what
>>tasks/responsibilities it should do, what features it generally has to
>>have, etc) is low, people will be looking at MySQL as "good enough" and
>>will not be motivated to look around for something better. As a
>>comparison, I'm always amazed by people who use Windows 95/98/Me. They
>>find it normal/"good enough" that the system crashes every now and then,
>>has to be rebooted every few hours (or every time they install
>>something). They don't know of anything better.
>
>
> Agree. People don't know that an RDBMS can be more better.
>
> A lot of users think speed is the most important thing. And they check
> the performance of SQL server by "time mysql -e "SELECT..." but they
> don't know something about concurrency or locking.
Even worse: They benchmark "SELECT 1+1" one million times.
The performance of "SELECT 1+1" has NOTHING to do with the REAL
performance of a database.
Has anybody seen the benchmarks on MySQL??? They have benchmarked
"CREATE TABLE" and so forth. This is the most useless thing I have ever
seen.
It is so annoying _ I had to post it ;).
Regards,
Hans
> BTW, is the current MySQL target (replication, transactions, ..etc)
> what typical MySQL users expect? I think they will lost users who love
> classic, fast and simple MySQL. The trade with advanced SQL servers is
> pretty full. I don't understand why MySQL developers want to leave
> their current possition and want to fight with PostgreSQL, Oracle, DB2
> .. etc.
>
> Karel
>
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Schoengrabern 134, A-2020 Hollabrunn, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706 or +43/664/233 90 75
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
Hi! Jeff Davis wrote: >>My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is >>anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. > > One common thing people talk about is ease of use. However that puzzles > me, since it takes all of (about) three commands to install postgresql > and log into the database for the first time. I use debian, so it > amounts to "apt-get install", su to "postgres" and "psql template1". "Ease of use" == "I would like to install it on my precious-s-s win* without this horrible Cygwin" No more, no less. > One very legitimate concern is the PostgreSQL site's search > functionality. I really like php.net, and I think MySQL tries to make > their website like PHP's. That requires manpower, and we've already > discussed that on this list. "discussed" is good, but where's that "manpower"?
Rather than contining with the answers that you and the others have contributed to the thread I'm going to respond to this first posting. The first link that you've quoted is a mixture of fact that I can agree with and an excuse to express an ego. I was first introduced to pc based databases back around when DBase came out. DBase II was not that good but DBase-III+ was what set the measure for everything else that came onto the PC, including oracle. Ironically the blog that you've listed is a demonstration of the success of the human desire to justify ones value system by converting others. What drove the development of sql related technology has less to do with technology and more to do with psychology and human nature. In my opinion MySQL became popular because of the internet (no news there). I still remember the days when a person could get paid $300 for composing one html page. People get spoilt making this kind of money so when companies like microsoft started putting out products that simplified html composing, like frontpage, thus allowing less skilled children onto the market, the html page composers saw the writing on the wall and started hunting for the next 'evolution' which was of course dynamic pages. Netscape was king in those days and javascript made a great impression on the community. What a concept to be able to change the way a page looked and acted. So now the emphasis was instead of making money on a static page it would be a dynamic one. The more popular a technology is the higher the elite must raise the bar to continue making gobs of money. So as more people jumped on the bandwagon we had to look at other ways of expanding the word 'dynamic'. Enter databased information. Meanwhile, as html was getting more complicated we had taken our classically trained views of programming languages and applied it to server side includes and to javascript. But javascript is such a bitch so cgi remained important until larry showed up and changed the paradign by looking at the person rather than the language (remember larry's a linguist) and we stared using perl. So now people started using databased technology on the internet. Remember, I speak of the grass roots and not that very small minority of DBA's that had a real understanding of databases. MySQL became popular, it "bragged" (this is the point folks) that you could attach your programming language to it and get good results. And for what it's is worth, this was true. People hate to change and need to justify their decisions in life with the money they make so programming stayed outside of the database for a long time giving MySQL time to evolve. The reason why MySQL remains relevant because it grew up at rate that the grass roots expectations grew. PostgreSQL is different, it was never part of this movement because of its roots. Using this view of history I would argue that Pg is the newcomer and MySQL is the veteran. If we want to reach the 'popular' masses then we need to consider the psychology of the internet ... go after the grass roots by convincing them that their jobs are on the line if they don't learn proper relational theory. Show them! Give them examples! There's three phases to software development: - programming - debugging - documentation You old timers have done the first two. Now it's time to address the last one. And if you don't agree with what I say it may not perhaps be so much because I'm wrong but because you have not invested your self-image into that activity. Success is about figuring out what everybody wants before they do. And the measure of success is not technology its money. Bruce Momjian wrote: >Here is a blog about a recent MySQL conference with title, "Why MySQL >Grew So Fast": > > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4715 > >and a a Slashdot discussion about it: > > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/20/2229212&mode=nested&tid=137&tid=185&tid=187&tid=198 > >My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is >anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. > >Questions I have are: > > o Are we marketing ourselves properly? > o Are we focused enough on ease-of-use issues? > o How do we position ourselves against a database that some > say is "good enough" (MySQL), and another one that some > say is "too much" (Oracle) > o Are our priorities too technically driven? > > >
Bruce Momjian wrote: > My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is > anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. Here is one thing I can suggest from personal experience. PostgreSQL is easy to configure and install; one of the easiest out there. That's mostly moot anyways since most of the popular distros come with pg pre-installed (although you still have to know how to upgrade it). Recompiling php and apache (and hooking everything up together), however, is not always so easy. I think lobbying the php/distros to have postgres support compiled into php in the default installation would be a big help from adoption. mysql's grass roots support comes from free tools like phpnuke and others. One thing that could use a little work in the manual is practial issues when dealing with application development...especially transactions, locking, and concurrency issues which tend to come up in applications. Why/When to use them, benefits, gotchas, etc. etc. Think 'best practices' or strategies. There is an excellent tutorial in the docs wrt the rule system,..there could be more stuff like that. Oh, a couple of days ago someone mentioned a wiki...that would be great. Merlin
On Apr 23, 2004, at 8:35 AM, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: >> My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is >> anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. >> Questions I have are: > > I have already told Bruce at length about the single most common > complaint in the phpPgAdmin lists and in the IRC channel: the > inability to change column types. I think we should listen to the > punters on that one. > > Also, how about a new section in the manual: PostgreSQL for MySQL > users and PostgreSQL for Oracle users? Hello Bruce, Chris and everyone, So far I have offered free PHP5/ PostgreSQL hosting to around 800 developers that signed up on dotgeek.org I gathered a number of feedback. Overall many PHP developers are extremely impressed by PostgreSQL but they never had the chance/found a reason to try it. The issues are related mainly to the syntax. Here MySQL, by using non standards systems, is making the move not that easy to many developers. Marketing is an important point, so is being able to let the highest number of people to try PostgreSQL and see the difference. Another problem is, as far as I can say, their easier to search and more user friendly manual. I know that Alexey is working on that so I will think about a way to contribute directly. Users (and monitored) comments are a must IMHO. Cheers David Costa > > Chris > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is > > anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. > > > > Questions I have are: > > I have already told Bruce at length about the single most common > complaint in the phpPgAdmin lists and in the IRC channel: the inability > to change column types. I think we should listen to the punters on that > one. Yea, I will push that for 7.5. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Am Freitag, 23. April 2004 06:09 schrieb Bruce Momjian: > o Are we marketing ourselves properly? > o Are we focused enough on ease-of-use issues? > o How do we position ourselves against a database that some > say is "good enough" (MySQL), and another one that some > say is "too much" (Oracle) > o Are our priorities too technically driven? Success is not measured by absolute number of installations. You can measure success by having enough users so that the project can continue, enough users so you can make a living, more satisfied users than unsatisfied ones, more heavy-duty installations than personal database-driven websites, and by having a product that you feel good about. The only way to position ourselves is as the relational database with the best price/performance ration (price = TOC, performance = features + speed). And the only way to achieve any of these goals is by focussing on technology and ease of use. For the crowd out there, PostgreSQL is an exciting and growing topic. That's more important than the installation count.
> > One very legitimate concern is the PostgreSQL site's search > > functionality. I really like php.net, and I think MySQL tries to make > > their website like PHP's. That requires manpower, and we've already > > discussed that on this list. > > "discussed" is good, but where's that "manpower"? If we have a good idea of what it is we want, I'll volunteer to write it.
> One common thing people talk about is ease of use. However that puzzles > me, since it takes all of (about) three commands to install postgresql > and log into the database for the first time. I use debian, so it > amounts to "apt-get install", su to "postgres" and "psql template1". My present theory is that most users make the decision regarding ease of use before even installing the software. If you look at the MySQL website within 1 or 2 clicks, you know that there is a gui for queries, a gui for administration, drivers or interfaces for many programming langauges. They have GIS, Unicode, full text searching, multi-master replication, ANSI compliance, etc. Not that all of those items are necessarily true, but that is what the user believes. In contrast, from the PostgresSQL website I know PostgreSQL can deal with a large dataset, has lots of backend features, supports many languages. Looking hard enough you might find a link to the pgreplication which currently has the goal of integrating with PostgreSQL 7.2 ;) You don't learn anything about the GUIs (any of them) within the first couple of clicks. Since many users (even linux users) associate command lines with difficulty of use, the first impression is that PostgreSQL is difficult to use.
Hi! Rod Taylor wrote: > My present theory is that most users make the decision regarding ease of > use before even installing the software. > > If you look at the MySQL website within 1 or 2 clicks, you know that > there is a gui for queries, a gui for administration, drivers or > interfaces for many programming langauges. They have GIS, Unicode, full > text searching, multi-master replication, ANSI compliance, etc. > > ... > > You don't learn anything about the GUIs (any of them) within the first > couple of clicks. Since many users (even linux users) associate command > lines with difficulty of use, the first impression is that PostgreSQL is > difficult to use. I think that PostgreSQL's "download" page should point to at least * Recommended replication solution (erserver?) * Recommended full-text search solution (tsearch?) * Recommended GUI / web frontend (PGAdmin / phpPgAdmin) * Drivers: ODBC, JDBC, whatever * PostGIS * Banners to put on the website * A description of what to find in the contrib dir If someone makes such a page, I'll promptly add it to the "next-generation" site.
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Here is a blog about a recent MySQL conference with title, "Why MySQL > Grew So Fast": > > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4715 > > and a a Slashdot discussion about it: > > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/20/2229212&mode=nested&tid=137&tid=185&tid=187&tid=198 > > My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is > anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. My immediate rhetorical response is "What could the Tortoise learn from the Hare?" I think we all know which is which in my question. > Questions I have are: > > o Are we marketing ourselves properly? I'm never sure about this. I think the best marketing is experienced users selling pg to their bosses one at a time. While our MSSQL servers at work have died under load innumerable times, our small collection of postgresql servers (one's so old and embedded it's running 6.4) have been very reliable. So, slowly but surely, PostgreSQL is proving itself here. > o Are we focused enough on ease-of-use issues? Enough for me, but I don't think databases should necessarily be all that easy to use by people who don't understand basic relational theory. So for me, ease of use means things like transactable DDL and well indexed, well written documentation. I suspect ease of use for my boss is something entirely differnt, and may have to do with why he bought the EMS postgresql manager packages he did. > o How do we position ourselves against a database that some > say is "good enough" (MySQL), and another one that some > say is "too much" (Oracle) Hey, we're like the porridge in goldilock's, just right... :-) dba folks don't pick MySQL, because it's so limited and basically has so many bugs (it's a feature that we don't bounds check data!) And it's pretty easy to get an Oracle guy to play with postgresql when you show him things like transactionable DDL. > o Are our priorities too technically driven? I don't think so. But I'm a database / coder geek. :-)
Bruce,
Hmmm ... lessons of MySQL:
-- Marketing matters more than technical quality
(not news, Microsoft taught us that)
-- You can often get away with pretending to have features
you don't actually have with enough spin
(Microsoft also outshines MySQL in this area)
-- Educated Database Administrators are in short supply,
and as a result nobody cares about the SQL standard or
relational theory anymore
(Fabian Pascal could have told you that; according to him,
the whole DB industry has been in steady decline since 1994)
-- Commerical companies are uncomfortable with Real Open Source,
and prefer the pseudo-open-source offered by dual-licensing
companies
This last lesson was really driven home to me at the Open Source Business
Convention; managers were slavering all over "dual licensing" as the "new
model of open source." When I pointed out that there's another name for
dual licensing -- "shareware" -- I got some real uncomfortable silences.
Seems that a lot of companies want the fruits of Open Source without changing
the way they do business at all. Big surprise, eh?
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > This last lesson was really driven home to me at the Open Source Business > Convention; managers were slavering all over "dual licensing" as the "new > model of open source." When I pointed out that there's another name for > dual licensing -- "shareware" -- I got some real uncomfortable silences. > Seems that a lot of companies want the fruits of Open Source without changing > the way they do business at all. Big surprise, eh? Agreed. I see dual-license as an interim step for companies moving from close to true open source. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Merlin Moncure wrote:
Ahh the popular distros do.... redhat, suse, mandrake...Bruce Momjian wrote:My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question.Here is one thing I can suggest from personal experience. PostgreSQL is easy to configure and install; one of the easiest out there. That's mostly moot anyways since most of the popular distros come with pg pre-installed (although you still have to know how to upgrade it). Recompiling php and apache (and hooking everything up together), however, is not always so easy. I think lobbying the php/distros to have postgres support compiled into php in the default installation would be a big help from adoption.
mysql's grass roots support comes from free tools like phpnuke and others. One thing that could use a little work in the manual is practial issues when dealing with application development...especially transactions, locking, and concurrency issues which tend to come up in applications. Why/When to use them, benefits, gotchas, etc. etc. Think 'best practices' or strategies. There is an excellent tutorial in the docs wrt the rule system,..there could be more stuff like that. Oh, a couple of days ago someone mentioned a wiki...that would be great. Merlin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
-- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Bruce, > Agreed. I see dual-license as an interim step for companies moving from > close to true open source. Actually, I don't. As I said, dual-license companies aren't really OSS companies. They are shareware companies, and as such closer to proprietary software than OSS. Futher, these shareware companies *never* move in the direction of being more open as they grow -- they always become more proprietary. See MySQL, VA Systems, Sendmail for examples. Only BerkelyDB seems to have been able to avoid getting more proprietary with time. In fact, I'd say that it's more likely for a 100% proprietary company to open-source a product than for a shareware company to go fully OSS. See, for the shareware companies, OSS is a marketing and distribution model to help them with growing their market share -- and not how their development or organization works. Once they are established in the market, they will toss their OSS facade like a successful junior manager dumps his old hand-me-down suit he wore to the interview when he gets if first paycheck. For the customers of such shareware, it's really just a cheaper alternative to existing offerings -- they don't care about or understand OSS, they just want to be able to license database servers at MySQL's $500 each instead of Microsoft's $5000 each. The only real benefit is that because shareware software wraps itself in the rhetoric of Open Source, its introduciton does open the door for the IT department to sneak in some real Open Source. But in most cases, Linux opened the door to OSS a while ago. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Fri, 2004-04-23 at 13:13, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > This last lesson was really driven home to me at the Open Source Business
> > Convention; managers were slavering all over "dual licensing" as the "new
> > model of open source." When I pointed out that there's another name for
> > dual licensing -- "shareware" -- I got some real uncomfortable silences.
> > Seems that a lot of companies want the fruits of Open Source without changing
> > the way they do business at all. Big surprise, eh?
>
> Agreed. I see dual-license as an interim step for companies moving from
> close to true open source.
>
Funny, I've never really felt that way. I don't see all that much
difference between what my$ql does with it's database and what m$ did
with ie or office or <insert m$ product here>... give it away for free
until you get enough market share to start charging more and more. I
guess it's a little better because if the company itself we're ever to
go under people could still take the source and go with it, but still
the dual license scheme to me is just the latest incarnation of a
"loss-leader" marketing plan.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Alexey Borzov wrote: > I think that PostgreSQL's "download" page should point to at least > * Recommended replication solution (erserver?) > * Recommended full-text search solution (tsearch?) > * Recommended GUI / web frontend (PGAdmin / phpPgAdmin) > * Drivers: ODBC, JDBC, whatever > * PostGIS > * Banners to put on the website > * A description of what to find in the contrib dir A couple of months ago I grew tired of having to find all the PostgreSQL pieces all over the net, plus having to get them to get along with each other and the rest of the system. So I started packaging and collecting them here: <http://www.unitedpostgresql.org/>. It's already saved me a bunch of time. Feel free to take from it.
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 16:36:57 -0400, pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote: > > Ease of use is VERY important, but few suggestions that address this are > ever really accepted. Yes, focusing on the functionality is the primary > concern, but "how" you set it up and deploy it is VERY important. You guys > need to remember, people are coming from a world where MySQL, Oracle, and > MSSQL all have nice setup programs. "nice" must be in the eye of the beholder. I have used Oracle's installer to install a client and was not amused by it need hundreds of megabtyes to do a client install.
Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 16:36:57 -0400, > pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote: > >>Ease of use is VERY important, but few suggestions that address this are >>ever really accepted. Yes, focusing on the functionality is the primary >>concern, but "how" you set it up and deploy it is VERY important. You guys >>need to remember, people are coming from a world where MySQL, Oracle, and >>MSSQL all have nice setup programs. > > > "nice" must be in the eye of the beholder. I have used Oracle's installer > to install a client and was not amused by it need hundreds of megabtyes > to do a client install. I have to agree, I've installed DB2, Sybase, Oracle, Informix, BerkeleyDB, mySQL, postgreSQL and others. IIRC, I believe postgreSQL was the shortest from download to running system (when compiling the OS ones from scratch) and seemed to do the most thorough testing of itself. Oracle doesn't seem to give you the option to not install the hundreds of megs of documentation on the Nth machine where you just needed the damn client lib - less of an issue now than in the smaller disk/partition days. But I think there is room to go further, I don't see any reason why that default install can't include example DBs, sample maintenance scripts, etc. One nice thing to have would be a sample DB with the scripts necessary to spin up a test/demo DB with a size of X megs. Whenever I started with a new DB system, I wished I didn't have to ramp up on a bunch of topics before I was able to build a set of scripts to generate and populate a sizable testing db. There is a big psychological factor if you can install something, type one command and have a db with 250,000 records to start playing with.
Rob wrote: > But I think there is room to go further, I don't see any reason why > that default install can't include example DBs, One reason is that a useful example database would likely have a download footprint of 10 MB or more. Having this in the default download would not be appreciated by many people. Of course having some example database available at all would be a good idea, but then as a separate download.
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Rob wrote: > > But I think there is room to go further, I don't see any reason why > > that default install can't include example DBs, > > One reason is that a useful example database would likely have a > download footprint of 10 MB or more. Having this in the default > download would not be appreciated by many people. Of course having > some example database available at all would be a good idea, but then > as a separate download. Here is a little psql script I wrote to populate a table with random data. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 \set ECHO all \timing DROP TABLE perftest; CREATE TABLE perftest (col text); -- prime table with one row INSERT INTO perftest VALUES ('0.364461265208414'); -- continously double the table size INSERT INTO perftest SELECT random()::text FROM perftest; INSERT INTO perftest SELECT random()::text FROM perftest; INSERT INTO perftest SELECT random()::text FROM perftest; INSERT INTO perftest SELECT random()::text FROM perftest; INSERT INTO perftest SELECT random()::text FROM perftest; INSERT INTO perftest SELECT random()::text FROM perftest; INSERT INTO perftest SELECT random()::text FROM perftest; INSERT INTO perftest SELECT random()::text FROM perftest; INSERT INTO perftest SELECT random()::text FROM perftest; INSERT INTO perftest SELECT random()::text FROM perftest; INSERT INTO perftest SELECT random()::text FROM perftest; INSERT INTO perftest SELECT random()::text FROM perftest; INSERT INTO perftest SELECT random()::text FROM perftest; INSERT INTO perftest SELECT random()::text FROM perftest; -- insert a constant in the middle of the table, for use later INSERT INTO perftest VALUES ('0.608254158221304'); INSERT INTO perftest SELECT random()::text FROM perftest; -- 32770 rows -- vacuum, create index VACUUM ANALYZE perftest; CREATE INDEX i_perftest ON perftest (col); -- reduce chance of checkpoint during tests CHECKPOINT; -- turn on logging SET log_duration = TRUE; SET client_min_messages = 'log'; -- run normal and prepared queries SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = '0.608254158221304'; SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = '0.608254158221304'; SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = '0.608254158221304'; SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = '0.608254158221304'; SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = '0.608254158221304'; PREPARE perftest_prep (text) AS SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = $1; EXECUTE perftest_prep ('0.608254158221304'); EXECUTE perftest_prep ('0.608254158221304'); EXECUTE perftest_prep ('0.608254158221304'); EXECUTE perftest_prep ('0.608254158221304'); EXECUTE perftest_prep ('0.608254158221304'); -- first time the entire statement SET log_statement_stats = TRUE; -- run normal and prepared queries SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = '0.608254158221304'; SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = '0.608254158221304'; SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = '0.608254158221304'; SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = '0.608254158221304'; SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = '0.608254158221304'; PREPARE perftest_prep (text) AS SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = $1; EXECUTE perftest_prep ('0.608254158221304'); EXECUTE perftest_prep ('0.608254158221304'); EXECUTE perftest_prep ('0.608254158221304'); EXECUTE perftest_prep ('0.608254158221304'); EXECUTE perftest_prep ('0.608254158221304'); -- now log each query stage SET log_statement_stats = FALSE; SET log_parser_stats = TRUE; SET log_planner_stats = TRUE; SET log_executor_stats = TRUE; -- run normal and prepared queries SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = '0.608254158221304'; SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = '0.608254158221304'; SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = '0.608254158221304'; SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = '0.608254158221304'; SELECT col FROM perftest WHERE col = '0.608254158221304'; EXECUTE perftest_prep ('0.608254158221304'); EXECUTE perftest_prep ('0.608254158221304'); EXECUTE perftest_prep ('0.608254158221304'); EXECUTE perftest_prep ('0.608254158221304'); EXECUTE perftest_prep ('0.608254158221304');
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >>Rob wrote: >> >>>But I think there is room to go further, I don't see any reason why >>>that default install can't include example DBs, >> >>One reason is that a useful example database would likely have a >>download footprint of 10 MB or more. Having this in the default >>download would not be appreciated by many people. Of course having >>some example database available at all would be a good idea, but then >>as a separate download. > > > Here is a little psql script I wrote to populate a table with random > data. [snip] Right, I have done the same in the past using random character data (it even had random lengths of strings in the different fields) and in other cases random dictionary words. I was thinking something with more structure, like an customer/product/invoice db with random records that link up to each other properly. I will work on something but am wondering if there are any freely available schemas around (for any system, I know Sybase has a book publishing one that they use in their example queries and is provided with their install, "pubs2" I believe) that might be good for use in a more extended sample db. Are there any platforms (outside of MS Windows) that don't include a word list or dictionary these days?
Bruce Momjian wrote: >Here is a blog about a recent MySQL conference with title, "Why MySQL >Grew So Fast": > > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4715 > >and a a Slashdot discussion about it: > > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/20/2229212&mode=nested&tid=137&tid=185&tid=187&tid=198 > >My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is >anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. > >Questions I have are: > > o Are we marketing ourselves properly? > o Are we focused enough on ease-of-use issues? > o How do we position ourselves against a database that some > say is "good enough" (MySQL), and another one that some > say is "too much" (Oracle) > o Are our priorities too technically driven? > > > Do we care enough about interoperability? When I ask about non-standard complience of Pg (turning unquoted identifiers to lowercase instead of uppercase, violating the SQL standard, and requring an expensive rewrite of clients), and I get the answer "uppercase is ugly", I think something is wrong. To be fair, I got a fair amount of legitimate problems with MIGRATING to standard compliency. I find these issues legitimate, though solveable. Getting a "we prefer lowercase to the standard", however, means to me that even if I write a patch to start migration, I'm not likely to get it in. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting http://www.lingnu.com/
> My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is > anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. > > Questions I have are: > > o Are we focused enough on ease-of-use issues? There are two issues here : ease-of-use for admin and basic users. I recognize my focus on the later as someone using pg as a teaching tool. Having a correct SQL implementation, referential integrity and transactions is an important issue when explaining DB concepts. That's why I could not have used mysql. Having some help/hint/advices/caveat provided for basic users would help. But some of the change I submitted require a lot of changes, especially in the parser, hence are rejected. I also submit patch to try to fix some "surprises" (there is != but not ==, non-user tables are in stat_.._user_tables viewa...) I had while using pg. My agenda is quite hard to get thru the hacker/patch lists. Maybe because the patches I sent are not really good enough, but also because it is not a real focus of postgres developers. On for former point, admin ease-of-use, A little story a few month ago. I succeeded in advising production people here to switch some applications from a mysql database, which was working perfectly, to a postgres database. A few weeks later, the performances were desastrous. 30 seconds to get an answer to a simple select on a 1500 entries tables. After investigation, the problems were: - no vacuum, although there were daily "DELETE FROM tables;" to empty all the data and reload from another source. - no analyze, because the admin did not know about it. - very small "shared_buffers" setting (16 the minimum thanks to FreeBSD default installation...). With mysql, you don't need to vacuum analyze, and I think the memory management maybe more or less "automatic". I think that the default configuration should have some "automagic" features so that reasonnable values are chosen depending on the available resources, which would allow basic users not to care about it. memory_management = auto/manual... You also need to have a basic standalone binary port to windows. I wish I could allow simply my students to use pg on their home computers. Well, it does not work that simply, you need cygwin at the time, and I haven't seen the windows binary available for download from the pg download page. > o How do we position ourselves against a database that some > say is "good enough" (MySQL), and another one that some > say is "too much" (Oracle) "free and serious". > o Are our priorities too technically driven? Not bad if other agendas can also get through. -- Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:05:21PM +0700, David Garamond wrote:
> So in my opinion, as long as the general awareness about RDBMS (on what
> tasks/responsibilities it should do, what features it generally has to
> have, etc) is low, people will be looking at MySQL as "good enough" and
> will not be motivated to look around for something better. As a
> comparison, I'm always amazed by people who use Windows 95/98/Me. They
> find it normal/"good enough" that the system crashes every now and then,
> has to be rebooted every few hours (or every time they install
> something). They don't know of anything better.
Agree. People don't know that an RDBMS can be more better.
A lot of users think speed is the most important thing. And they check
the performance of SQL server by "time mysql -e "SELECT..." but they
don't know something about concurrency or locking.
BTW, is the current MySQL target (replication, transactions, ..etc)
what typical MySQL users expect? I think they will lost users who love
classic, fast and simple MySQL. The trade with advanced SQL servers is
pretty full. I don't understand why MySQL developers want to leave
their current possition and want to fight with PostgreSQL, Oracle, DB2
.. etc.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/
Dear Matthew, > My goal is to have pg_autovacuum integrated into the backend for 7.5. I know about that, and that would be a good thing. > I don't know if it will default to being turned on or off, I'm sure that > will be a discussion, but if it is defaulted to on, then this whole > problem of having to train newbies about vacuum should just go away. Yes. I really thing that it should be on by default, because those who will need it more than others are those who will not know about tuning configuration parameters. As I understand the requirements from pg_autovacuum, it means that some statistics will have to be on by default as well. Good luck;-) -- Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr
> There are two issues here : ease-of-use for admin and basic users. > > On for former point, admin ease-of-use, A little story a few month ago. > > I succeeded in advising production people here to switch some applications > from a mysql database, which was working perfectly, to a postgres > database. A few weeks later, the performances were desastrous. 30 seconds > to get an answer to a simple select on a 1500 entries tables. After > investigation, the problems were: > > - no vacuum, although there were daily "DELETE FROM tables;" > to empty all the data and reload from another source. > > - no analyze, because the admin did not know about it. My goal is to have pg_autovacuum integrated into the backend for 7.5. I don't know if it will default to being turned on or off, I'm sure that will be a discussion, but if it is defaulted to on, then this whole problem of having to train newbies about vacuum should just go away. Matthew
Bruce Momjian wrote: >My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is >anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. > > > MySQL became popular at my university when the students discovered they could install it on their personal computers. Just the exposure for personal development and trial is enough to win a following. Win32 installations are a big deal. With win32 machines outnumbering *nix operating systems by more than 10 to 1 (more on personal computers), the "unix only" restriction reduced the number of possible people testing and developing with it by at least that amount. Most developers I know work primarily on Windows workstations and asking for a machine to run Postgresql on unix is just not practical. With the win32 port, they can run it on their computers and at least test or evaluate their projects. I and a number of my friends are exceptionally please at the progress of the win32 port. Thank you!
>> My goal is to have pg_autovacuum integrated into the backend for 7.5. > > I know about that, and that would be a good thing. I hope so! >> I don't know if it will default to being turned on or off, I'm sure that >> will be a discussion, but if it is defaulted to on, then this whole >> problem of having to train newbies about vacuum should just go away. > > Yes. I really thing that it should be on by default, because those who > will need it more than others are those who will not know about tuning > configuration parameters. As I understand the requirements from > pg_autovacuum, it means that some statistics will have to be on by default > as well. I think it's premature to have this conversation. I need to get something done / working before we dicuss optimal configuration. That said, I also agree that if it's good enough, it should be on by default. > Good luck;-) Thanks, I'll need it.... Matthew ps: I'm hoping to have time to work on this starting in May. I haven't really done any development on pg_autovacuum beyond bug fixing what is already in CVS, so.... If someone out there wants to work on it, don't wait for me, I won't be offended :-) I just want to see it up and running.
Does the current implementation of pg_autovacuum have a way of setting windows where it is allowed to vacuum? Many large 24/7 will only allow vacuumming at certain times of the day. Dave On Fri, 2004-04-23 at 08:58, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: > > There are two issues here : ease-of-use for admin and basic users. > > > > On for former point, admin ease-of-use, A little story a few month ago. > > > > I succeeded in advising production people here to switch some applications > > from a mysql database, which was working perfectly, to a postgres > > database. A few weeks later, the performances were desastrous. 30 seconds > > to get an answer to a simple select on a 1500 entries tables. After > > investigation, the problems were: > > > > - no vacuum, although there were daily "DELETE FROM tables;" > > to empty all the data and reload from another source. > > > > - no analyze, because the admin did not know about it. > > My goal is to have pg_autovacuum integrated into the backend for 7.5. I > don't know if it will default to being turned on or off, I'm sure that > will be a discussion, but if it is defaulted to on, then this whole > problem of having to train newbies about vacuum should just go away. > > Matthew > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html > > > > !DSPAM:40892fd393131228097780! > > -- Dave Cramer 519 939 0336 ICQ # 14675561
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:07:20 -0400
Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:
> Does the current implementation of pg_autovacuum have a way of setting
> windows where it is allowed to vacuum? Many large 24/7 will only allow
> vacuumming at certain times of the day.
It seems to me that the point of pg_autovacuum would be to run 24/7 so
that there is never big hit on the system. Perhaps it could be designed
to throttle itself based on current system usage though.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:07:20 -0400 > Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote: >> Does the current implementation of pg_autovacuum have a way of setting >> windows where it is allowed to vacuum? Many large 24/7 will only allow >> vacuumming at certain times of the day. > > It seems to me that the point of pg_autovacuum would be to run 24/7 so > that there is never big hit on the system. Perhaps it could be designed > to throttle itself based on current system usage though. Right, there has been some talk about taking the system load into account, but no action yet. One comment I failed to make in my last email was that there should be less need to explictly disallow vacuum during peak periods since vacuum will only be occuring on specific tables when needed, which will effect the server for a much smaller period of time than a general vacuum command that touches all the tables.
> Does the current implementation of pg_autovacuum have a way of setting > windows where it is allowed to vacuum? Many large 24/7 will only allow > vacuumming at certain times of the day. No the current implementation doesn't, but such a feature is in the works (planned anyway). What I was envisioning is the ability to set two different sets of thresholds (peak / off peak). If you demand zero vacuuming during peak times, you could set that threshold to -1, or some such setting. FYI I wouldn't remcommend defaulting pg_autovacuum to on until it does this, and a few more things that are also planned (see the archives). Matthew
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 02:35:48PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > >My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is > >anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. > > > >Questions I have are: > > I have already told Bruce at length about the single most common > complaint in the phpPgAdmin lists and in the IRC channel: the inability > to change column types. I think we should listen to the punters on that > one. > > Also, how about a new section in the manual: PostgreSQL for MySQL users > and PostgreSQL for Oracle users? Maybe also a more generic section about how PGSQL is different from other databases. Maybe I'm just dense, but it took me a long time to figure out the whole lack of stored procedures thing (yes, PGSQL obviously has the functionality, but many experienced DBAs won't associate functions with stored procs). Pointing out the documentation on MVCC and how it changes how you want to use the database would be good, as would links to documentation on what postgresql.conf settings you want to change out of the box. On the other topics... I think the biggest service PGSQL could provide to the open source community is a resource that teaches people with no database experience the fundamentals of databases. If people had an understanding of what a RDBMS should be capable of and how it should be used, they wouldn't pick MySQL. Having a windows port is critical for 'student mindshare'. If PGSQL can't play on windows, professors can't use it. Likewise, installation on OS X should be made as easy as possible. That's for the 'low end' users (many of whom will eventually become 'high end'). For professionals who have database expertise, the comparison guide will help a lot. The other thing that will help is continuing to bring enterprise-class features in, like multi-master replication, partitioning, and clustering. But since people tend to think most about the technology, I'm sure those will make it in eventually anyway. :) -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant jim@nasby.net Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America 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?"
I have been thinking about this subject for a LONG time, and I hope I have something to contribute. > > My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is > anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. > > Questions I have are: > > o Are we marketing ourselves properly? I would say this is a clear 'NO!' When ever I read about open-source being used anywhere, I always read MySQL. They are *very* good at this. > o Are we focused enough on ease-of-use issues? Again, NO! To often you guys settle for a work-around rather than a feature. You are satisfied that symlinks will do the job. When someone says they want a feature, you say, no - use a symlink. Ease of use is VERY important, but few suggestions that address this are ever really accepted. Yes, focusing on the functionality is the primary concern, but "how" you set it up and deploy it is VERY important. You guys need to remember, people are coming from a world where MySQL, Oracle, and MSSQL all have nice setup programs. I know a bit about this, as I made a "PostgreSQL for Windows" (It was 7.3.x) CD a while back. I had to do a lot of work on the postgresql configuration, database initialization, and create a demo database. It used a minimal cygwin environment, a Windows based installer, and some custom function libraries. I tried to submit the configuration patch and all I got was argument about using symlinks or how it wasn't needed. The thing that kind of bugs me about this O/S project is that you guys are a bit nit-picking about how someone uses it. I believe in the UNIX phylosophy: capability not policy, flexability, etc. You guys seem to need an absolute reason to include something, rather than a good reason to exclude something. A lot of open source developers are turned off by this sort of attitude. > o How do we position ourselves against a database that some > say is "good enough" (MySQL), and another one that some > say is "too much" (Oracle) My argument against this is that MySQL is no less complicated than PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL, in production is faster than MySQL, even though MySQL may be marginally faster on some simple queries. The system resource usage of both systems is very similar. PostgreSQL, however, boasts a lot of standard features that make using it much easier. > o Are our priorities too technically driven? For the most part, you guys do a great, no .. fantastic, job at the technical details of the database. Even though I get frustrated, I know it is a great system. You *should* be technically driven. If you want to blow the competition out of the water, you need a non-forked Windows version of the database. You need a Java (or some other portable environment) installer. You need to get out of the hand-administered mentality of using symlinks and system level constructs. One should be able to install the software, bring up a nice configuration program which runs you through a few questions, and be done. This same configuration program should be able to help maintain and control an the installation. On Windows, have a service monitor program that starts and stops the server, on UNIX, have it able to start/stop via init.d. Everything else is "expert level."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, - -- Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > o Are we marketing ourselves properly? while talking about MySQL, there is the myth, that MySQL is fast; and that because MyISAM has no transactions, that it is faster. That is in most cases not true! And for all real live scenarios I know and I tested, Postgres was faster. An example: a critical calculation in one of my online projects needs with MySQL (MyISAM Table Type) about 2.7 to 2.8 seconds (group by on 500000 rows for some realtime statistics). But on this time, the complete table is write locked (because MyISAM) :-( With InnoDB the same needs at least 15 to 20 seconds, but other users can insert/update. With PostgreSQL (7.4) it took 1.9 to 2 seconds. Parallel inserts/updates no problem. The only reason why I changed the whole stuff to Postgres yet is, that there are a lot of problems with MySQL special "features" (see the Gotchas: http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html) Other example: Some days ago I had a talk with my project leader; I said, that for a new application we should *everything* build with transactions, referential integrity, ... -- his answer: "I want to have a fast application". AAARRGH! ;-( So, perhaps it might be a good idea to create a page with feature- and performance comparison. I planed to create an independant and RDBMS benchmark suite (as Free Software including the datas for testing), but I'm not sure if this project ever come true ... > o Are we focused enough on ease-of-use issues? I'm not sure about the focus; but the result can be better. When installing and using any type of software, I want that this is as easy as possible while it helps me to understand as much of the backgrounds as possible. Whats about the initdb, postgresql.conf and startup scripts? So, It might be good to have a GUI-Tool (!) in the standard package, which makes an initdb with selectable options and helps the user to set the required options in the postgresql.conf. I'm a computer freak since the mod 80s and I can edit config files. But to have a GUI tool with some explaining texts at the buttons etc is much easyer than hacking a textfile. Also the other stuff mentioned in this thread are important: auto vacuum, windows port, better default values etc. Ease-of-use includes for me localisation and documentation in different languages. As you can see, my english is junky -- so reading german documentation is a lot of easyer for me ;-) > o Are our priorities too technically driven? AFAIK it is good to have the priorities technically driven -- if nobody forgets the userfriendlyness ;) Ciao Alvar - -- ** Alvar C.H. Freude -- http://alvar.a-blast.org/ -- http://odem.org/ ** Berufsverbot? http://odem.org/aktuelles/staatsanwalt.de.html ** ODEM.org-Tour: http://tour.odem.org/ ** 5 Jahre Blaster: http://www.a-blast.de/ | http://www.a-blast.de/statistik/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAiX/eOndlH63J86wRAjzhAJ0f24+yuOSElI7NmFuChZUH3miWiACdFoH+ OLC0iUn7VP/ZIA30vU8M0tg= =RVWf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, - -- pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote: > I would say this is a clear 'NO!' When ever I read about open-source being > used anywhere, I always read MySQL. They are *very* good at this. yes! Some days ago, there was a news in the Heise Newsticker (most important IT news in germany), about MySQL clustering. http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/46511 "4*2 processors with 100000 replicated transactions per second" was the main statement. I'm sure, that this is the typical MySQL blabla: no transactions, but select statements ... <http://www.heise.de/newsticker/foren/go.shtml?read=1&msg_id=5487088&forum_id =55321> I'm not sure, if iot is a good idea to go down with the niveau to such lies. >> o Are we focused enough on ease-of-use issues? > > Again, NO! To often you guys settle for a work-around rather than a > feature. You are satisfied that symlinks will do the job. When someone > says they want a feature, you say, no - use a symlink. [...] yes, you are right! One additional thing: when updating from 7.x to 7.y, a new initdb is needed. This means: If I have some GB Data, the RDBMS is some ours down for upgrading. This is really no good situation. There should be a way for converting the storage on the fly: Updating and let postgres do the rest automaically. I guess this is not really easy; but it is important! Ciao Alvar - -- ** Alvar C.H. Freude -- http://alvar.a-blast.org/ -- http://odem.org/ ** Berufsverbot? http://odem.org/aktuelles/staatsanwalt.de.html ** ODEM.org-Tour: http://tour.odem.org/ ** 5 Jahre Blaster: http://www.a-blast.de/ | http://www.a-blast.de/statistik/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAiYcpOndlH63J86wRAoj7AKCt+SXIV/1UYa7hZlEpA1SrwpctnQCgpypM 2L5aRteQ7btVuBowcclBc28= =POHj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I think that when considering install, it is very important, if not critical, that we all understand who is doing the install. Certainly if it is a person much like us, meaning people on the hackers/development list, we can all handle more terse installs. Personally, I like the freedom of choices, and not having a result of hundreds of megs that I know are not required. On the other hand, we are really a minority. The masses certainly like simple installs, regardless of just how many megs are used, needed or not. If the masses really cared, then Microsoft would be in trouble. But, as we can see in the market place, they don't. In fact, most people think more is better. Somehow they think 2 CDROMs is better than 1 CDROM. So, if it takes an extra 200 meg to make a glitsy install with little videos expounding on how great Postgresql is, then for that user, it will make all of the difference. We need to remember who the audience is. We cannot gain mass market share otherwise. My 2 cents, won't buy coffee, Jordan Henderson --- Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 16:36:57 -0400, > pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote: > > > > Ease of use is VERY important, but few suggestions > that address this are > > ever really accepted. Yes, focusing on the > functionality is the primary > > concern, but "how" you set it up and deploy it is > VERY important. You guys > > need to remember, people are coming from a world > where MySQL, Oracle, and > > MSSQL all have nice setup programs. > > "nice" must be in the eye of the beholder. I have > used Oracle's installer > to install a client and was not amused by it need > hundreds of megabtyes > to do a client install. > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Bruno Wolff III wrote: >On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 16:36:57 -0400, > pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote: > > >>Ease of use is VERY important, but few suggestions that address this are >>ever really accepted. Yes, focusing on the functionality is the primary >>concern, but "how" you set it up and deploy it is VERY important. You guys >>need to remember, people are coming from a world where MySQL, Oracle, and >>MSSQL all have nice setup programs. >> >> > >"nice" must be in the eye of the beholder. I have used Oracle's installer >to install a client and was not amused by it need hundreds of megabtyes >to do a client install. > > > I second that. I have not found *anybody* who has used Oracle's installer to install the actual database server on Linux or Solaris who has described their installation proceedure as either "nice" or "easy." In fact even reading the installation isntructions is enough to give you second thoughts.... MS SQL does have a nice installer, however, as do most binary open source products for Windows. I am completely confident that PostgreSQL for Windows, when it arrives, will have a nice GUI-based installer. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
Attachment
Bruce asked an excellent question: > My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is > anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. After watching the traffic on this, the biggest MySQL lesson has gone largely unmentioned: that a well-funded, well-marketed, focused commercial entity clearly associated with the project can do wonders to overcome feature and technical shortcomings. At some point (probably there now), I think the lack of a "Postgres, Inc." is going to hinder adoption. Companies want to 'buy' from vendors that look like real, viable companies, and provide them products with support, training, features, and direction. With MySQL, you get one stop shopping. With Postgres, you've got to find and assemble the parts yourself. Most CIOs stop there, and start waiting for MySQL to get better before switching from Oracle. The other issue is marketing: in mature software markets, the best marketing (not the best technology) often wins. Without a sizeable marketing budget earmarked for Postgres, MySQL could be 60% as good and still win, unfortunately. For those that believe that the Linux kernel is a success model, don't forget that Red Hat had a lot to do with putting Linux on the map. And IBM. For those that look to Apache: Apache never had a well-established incumbent (Oracle), an a well-funded upstart competitor (MySQL). Rob McCool's NCSA httpd (and later, Apache) were good enough and developed rapidly enough that they prevented any other HTTP server projects from getting critical mass. The corollary to Bruce's question: where do *you* see the Postgres project in 3 years? Market share? Key features? Niche? Related: does MySQL stumble somehow, or do they keep gaining share? -andy
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 21:31:33 -0400, Andrew Payne <andy@payne.org> wrote: > > At some point (probably there now), I think the lack of a "Postgres, Inc." > is going to hinder adoption. Companies want to 'buy' from vendors that look > like real, viable companies, and provide them products with support, > training, features, and direction. With MySQL, you get one stop shopping. > With Postgres, you've got to find and assemble the parts yourself. Most > CIOs stop there, and start waiting for MySQL to get better before switching > from Oracle. I would expect that technical people (which would be DBAs and application developers) should be doing this research and reporting the results to the CIO. > The other issue is marketing: in mature software markets, the best > marketing (not the best technology) often wins. Without a sizeable > marketing budget earmarked for Postgres, MySQL could be 60% as good and > still win, unfortunately. It is not clear that Postgres needs to "win". It needs to have enough people interested in it in order to continue to significant development. It doesn't need to have a majority of the market share in order to do this. I suspect that get a larger market share amoungst some categories of users will hurt development by requiring more support than they contribute back to the project. > For those that look to Apache: Apache never had a well-established > incumbent (Oracle), an a well-funded upstart competitor (MySQL). Rob > McCool's NCSA httpd (and later, Apache) were good enough and developed > rapidly enough that they prevented any other HTTP server projects from > getting critical mass. Perhaps for a while. There are open source web servers now. A derivative of AOLserver is used by openACS.
Jim C. Nasby wrote: >Maybe also a more generic section about how PGSQL is different from >other databases. Maybe I'm just dense, but it took me a long time to >figure out the whole lack of stored procedures thing (yes, PGSQL >obviously has the functionality, but many experienced DBAs won't >associate functions with stored procs). Pointing out the documentation >on MVCC and how it changes how you want to use the database would be >good, as would links to documentation on what postgresql.conf settings >you want to change out of the box. > > > I think this is a good idea. And you seem to be suggesting that it includes information on differences in nomenclature as well. >On the other topics... >I think the biggest service PGSQL could provide to the open source >community is a resource that teaches people with no database experience >the fundamentals of databases. If people had an understanding of what a >RDBMS should be capable of and how it should be used, they wouldn't pick >MySQL. > > I think that this is incredibly important. Many many developers choose MySQL because MySQL really does make the effort in this regard. This strategy has helped both MySQL and Red Hat become the commercial successes they are today. >Having a windows port is critical for 'student mindshare'. If PGSQL can't >play on windows, professors can't use it. Likewise, installation on OS X >should be made as easy as possible. > > PostgreSQL *can* play on Windows (via Cygwin) and I am not sure that this is so important to student mindshare. Howener, it is important for another reason: a windows port (even one labled "for development use only") would go a LONG way towards recruiting new faces into our community, as it would lower the barrier to entry for using the database (yes, the Cygwin installer because of the ipc stuff is a reasonable barrier to entry). Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Andrew Payne wrote: > > Bruce asked an excellent question: > > > My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is > > anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. > > After watching the traffic on this, the biggest MySQL lesson has gone > largely unmentioned: that a well-funded, well-marketed, focused commercial > entity clearly associated with the project can do wonders to overcome > feature and technical shortcomings. > > At some point (probably there now), I think the lack of a "Postgres, Inc." > is going to hinder adoption. Companies want to 'buy' from vendors that look > like real, viable companies, and provide them products with support, > training, features, and direction. With MySQL, you get one stop shopping. > With Postgres, you've got to find and assemble the parts yourself. Most > CIOs stop there, and start waiting for MySQL to get better before switching > from Oracle. I'm gonna disagree here. I think that not having a postgresql inc to go to means that by the time postgresql becomes ubiquitous, it will be like apache. no company behind it, every company using it. I.e. we'll earn our stripes one at a time by proving we're the better database for 95% of all purposes, and anyone not using postgresql will be behind the power curve and doing themselves no favor. like CIO's who call Open Source "Shareware" and believe that .net provides for a more efficient programming environment, people who poo poo postgresql will find themselves behind the 8 ball in the long run. No need for a postgresql inc to do that, just time, good code, and knowledgable DBAs choosing it more and more often.
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Andrew Payne wrote: > For those that look to Apache: Apache never had a well-established > incumbent (Oracle), an a well-funded upstart competitor (MySQL). Rob > McCool's NCSA httpd (and later, Apache) were good enough and developed > rapidly enough that they prevented any other HTTP server projects from > getting critical mass. This is a followup to my previous message where I mentioned apache, but did not really followup on it. While Apache is and has been wildly popular for bulk hosing and domain parking, for serious commercial use, Netscape's enterprise server, now Sun One, has long been a leader in commercial web sites. That has now changed too. While Netscape's server was pretty good, it is simply harder to configure, not as versatile as apache, and not as reliable or as fast nowadays. This was not always the case. There was a time when its performance was considered to be much better than apache (I'm thinking about apache 1.3.4 or so) and apache configuration was a black art few understood. with modern gui tools for configuring apache, and the incredible performance gains the late model 1.3 versions and now 2.0.x versions have, it is quickly displacing the more expensive netscape. Apache did not start in first place when it comes to "enterprise" class web servers, no matter how many small personal web sites ran on it. Most commercial companies didn't use it at first. It too had to "earn its stripes" over time and by proving it was better. Now I know people who think Open Source is just so much pie in the sky hand waving philosophical candy who think apache and jboss are the bomb. they'll come around on PostgreSQL too, once someone with some foresight points out the advantages it has. and one of its advantages is that it doesn't have a large monolithic organization driving development.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I'm gonna disagree here. I think that not having a postgresql inc to go > to means that by the time postgresql becomes ubiquitous, it will be like > apache. no company behind it, every company using it. That's not entirely accurate. Apache has had lots of help from IBM, as well as a few other very large companies. > No need for a postgresql inc to do that, just time, good code, and > knowledgable DBAs choosing it more and more often. Sorry, but technical prowess alone is no recipe for success in today's marketplace. Things are more complex than that. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200404272007 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFAjvXFvJuQZxSWSsgRAjQoAJ4mcK3KHut1zzwFqqbXEUKXBv1i9QCgsdfX 2uftNhAts2CTAEpKmclW4cE= =ZaY3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> While Apache is and has been wildly popular for bulk hosing and domain
> parking, for serious commercial use, Netscape's enterprise server, now Sun
> One, has long been a leader in commercial web sites.
Netscrape/SunONE may have been a leader in some sub-market, but this misses
the point.
Apache + NCSA never had less than 50% market share, overall.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
Postgres is in a completely different situation: 95+?% of the world's
databases don't run on Postgres, and it's been this way for a long time.
Also, Apache never had "MyApache", a more popular version that many believe
to be "free" and "open source".
My point: Apache was successful in a situation that may not apply here.
Does anyone know of an open source project that *has* successfully displaced
a market of mature, established products WITHOUT a commercial entity
providing marketing, support & direction?
-andy
Clinging to sanity, greg@turnstep.com ("Greg Sabino Mullane") mumbled into her beard:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>> I'm gonna disagree here. I think that not having a postgresql inc
>> to go to means that by the time postgresql becomes ubiquitous, it
>> will be like apache. no company behind it, every company using it.
>
> That's not entirely accurate. Apache has had lots of help from IBM,
> as well as a few other very large companies.
>
>> No need for a postgresql inc to do that, just time, good code, and
>> knowledgable DBAs choosing it more and more often.
>
> Sorry, but technical prowess alone is no recipe for success in
> today's marketplace. Things are more complex than that.
Yeah, things _are_ more complex than that.
But consider also that products that are, in essence, commercial
products must be marketing successes in order to persist at all.
In order for MySQL AB to get paid, and in order for there to be
upgrades to the software, it is _essential_ that their products appear
to be vital commercial successes in the commercial marketplace.
There's some $19.6M of vulture capital that expresses exactly how
essential that is...
If they don't achieve the commercial success that the owners expect,
technical prowess or lack thereof is an entire nonissue.
The fact that there are no "vulture capitalists," no "$19.6M of
commercial pressures," and no stockholders means that some of the
vital 'criteria for failure' that exist for MySQL(tm) do not exist for
PostgreSQL.
The criteria for evaluating success and failure _do_ differ. It is
wasteful of time and effort to slavishly try to evaluate the differing
software on the same criteria.
If there is value in any of this exercise, it isn't in finding
similarities; it is in finding _useful_ differences.
- Useful differences between how aspects of PostgreSQL are presently
publicized and how they might be;
- Useful differences between the features PostgreSQL and other
software that are worth publicizing;
- Useful differences between PostgreSQL and other software in terms of
"soft differences" such as licensing and cost that are worth
publicizing.
It is distinctly NOT useful to merely try to find ways to slavishly
emulate what other projects are doing, particularly if they require
substantial political reorganization or a vulture capitalist with
$19.6M to invest.
It's hard to push contributors to a free software project. A useful
quote:
"Feel free to contribute build files. Or work on your motivational
skills, and maybe someone somewhere will write them for you..."
-- "Fredrik Lundh" <effbot@telia.com>
If a 'release manager' is needed, then either you need the venture
capital to pay someone to do that, or some serious motivational skills
good enough to let you convince people that don't "report to you" to
change what they want to do.
The ideal thing to do is to try to motivate people to do things that
they will find interesting and desirable. I don't see much focus on
that approach; rather the contrary.
--
"cbbrowne","@","ntlug.org"
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/sgml.html
Signs of a Klingon Programmer - 2. "Specifications are for the weak
and timid!"
Andrew Payne wrote: > Also, Apache never had "MyApache", a more popular version that many believe > to be "free" and "open source". > > My point: Apache was successful in a situation that may not apply here. > > Does anyone know of an open source project that *has* successfully displaced > a market of mature, established products WITHOUT a commercial entity > providing marketing, support & direction? Linux. It doesn't have a single company behind it, but several. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce wrote: > > Does anyone know of an open source project that *has* successfully displaced > > a market of mature, established products WITHOUT a commercial entity > > providing marketing, support & direction? > > Linux. It doesn't have a single company behind it, but several. Uh, no. Linux HAD a commercial entity providing marketing, support, and direction. Red Hat went a long, long way to making Linux real for businesses. They were (are) a well-funded entity, focused on Linux adoption. Their early success, in turn, validated the business (a) so competitors got funded and (b) so established companies (e.g. IBM) started to pay attention. (This is not meant to give all credit to Red Hat: if it wasn't them, it would have been some other similar group). So, does anyone know of an open source project that *has* successfully displaced a market of mature, established products WITHOUT a commercial entity providing marketing, support & direction? If not, where's the Red Hat for Postgres? Good discussion! -andy
Andrew Payne wrote: > > Bruce wrote: > > > > Does anyone know of an open source project that *has* successfully > displaced > > > a market of mature, established products WITHOUT a commercial entity > > > providing marketing, support & direction? > > > > Linux. It doesn't have a single company behind it, but several. > > Uh, no. Linux HAD a commercial entity providing marketing, support, and > direction. Red Hat went a long, long way to making Linux real for > businesses. They were (are) a well-funded entity, focused on Linux > adoption. Their early success, in turn, validated the business (a) so > competitors got funded and (b) so established companies (e.g. IBM) started > to pay attention. > > (This is not meant to give all credit to Red Hat: if it wasn't them, it > would have been some other similar group). > > So, does anyone know of an open source project that *has* successfully > displaced a market of mature, established products WITHOUT a commercial > entity providing marketing, support & direction? > > If not, where's the Red Hat for Postgres? My point was that once a single company showed it as profitable, other companies came alone and no one company controls Linux development. We have that now with SRA, Red Hat, Fujitsu, and many smaller companies funding development of PostgreSQL. (In fact, there were several Linux companies before Red Hat.) Now, if you are asking about marketing, yea, we don't have much in that area right now, and we need it. I think your point was that we need a single controlling company to provide marketing because if there are many, there is little incentive to market PostgreSQL because all the other companies are taking advantage of it. That is mostly true. However, I would argue that Red Hat providing support was more important than Red Hat marketing, and we do have that with a number of companies now, and SRA is going to be announcing world-wide support soon (not just Japan), and we have other venture capital guys looking a forming companies. My concern about a single company, as all of us are, is that we kill the community that created the software, which then burdens the single company to steer development, leading to disaster. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > I'm gonna disagree here. I think that not having a postgresql inc to go > > to means that by the time postgresql becomes ubiquitous, it will be like > > apache. no company behind it, every company using it. > > That's not entirely accurate. Apache has had lots of help from IBM, as well > as a few other very large companies. but no one company drove the development, and all development was handled by the apache group, which is built VERY much like the postgresql global development group. > > No need for a postgresql inc to do that, just time, good code, and > > knowledgable DBAs choosing it more and more often. > > Sorry, but technical prowess alone is no recipe for success in today's > marketplace. Things are more complex than that. Marketplace? like where you sell things? PostgreSQL is free, it competes outside of the bounds of the "marketplace". Since it doesn't have to make money to survive, it has a different definition of success, and that is, to me, that the people who use it and code it find it to be best for their uses. If others join in and use it or hack on it, that's great, but postgresql definitely has enough critical mass to continue for many years to come with little or no marketing. Personally, I don't care if postgresql captures 1% of the market of 99% of the market, as long as it remains the solid, reliable dbms engine it is. It's success is measured in the quality of its code, not the number of users.
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Andrew Payne wrote: > > Scott Marlowe wrote: > > > While Apache is and has been wildly popular for bulk hosing and domain > > parking, for serious commercial use, Netscape's enterprise server, now Sun > > One, has long been a leader in commercial web sites. > > Netscrape/SunONE may have been a leader in some sub-market, but this misses > the point. Not A submarket, THE submarket, enterprise class application server, i.e. web commerce and such. Just because apache hosts hundreds of thousands of personal web sites with all static content does not make it a "market leader". When it came to commercial usage, apache still had to fight its way to the top. > Apache + NCSA never had less than 50% market share, overall. > > http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html Again, if 98% of those sites are personal web sites with static content, (they certainly were until a few years ago) and you remove those from the counting, then you find out that in enterprise class web servers, apache had sound competition it is only now starting to consume. > Postgres is in a completely different situation: 95+?% of the world's > databases don't run on Postgres, and it's been this way for a long time. and some large percentage of the worlds app servers were running on something other than apache for quite some time too. If postgresql was ubiquitous as the database of choice for simple access type applications, it would still have to earn its stripes in the enterprise one at a time. > My point: Apache was successful in a situation that may not apply here. I agree that the situations aren't the exact same, but they're more similar than most people realize. Apache was never a market leader in the enterprise realm until fairly late in the 1.3.x series releases. > Does anyone know of an open source project that *has* successfully displaced > a market of mature, established products WITHOUT a commercial entity > providing marketing, support & direction? gcc?
Scott, >Personally, I don't care if > postgresql captures 1% of the market of 99% of the market, as long as it > remains the solid, reliable dbms engine it is. I agree that we don't have to have a majority of the market to be "successful." However, there is a very accurate adage in both business and politics: "If you're not growing, you're shrinking." We need to continue to grow, not necessarily to take over the market, but to make sure that we don't disappear entirely. I don't want to be the "betamax of databases". -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
> We need to continue to grow, not necessarily to take over the market, but to > make sure that we don't disappear entirely. I don't want to be the > "betamax of databases". But betamax was better ;) >
>>Does anyone know of an open source project that *has* successfully displaced >>a market of mature, established products WITHOUT a commercial entity >>providing marketing, support & direction? > > > gcc? Nope.... most big houses will use Intel/Borland/Vc++ or whatever comes with Solaris. In fact, I can not think of a single project that has displaced a commercial one, without market force behind it. Linux won't do it without RedHat/Novell. I would even dare say that Novell will be that driving force, not RedHat. Even Apache has an entity... It actually became much more popular once that entity came to existence (even though it was a 501). Another look at Linux shows that it's popularity amongst the washed masses didn't really soar until Big Blue (IBM) starting pushing it. PHP might be an interesting thought, but ASP is used more widely as is Java for commercial stuff. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Since it doesn't have to make money to survive, it has a different
> definition of success, and that is, to me, that the people who use
> it and code it find it to be best for their uses. If others join
> in and use it or hack on it, that's great, but postgresql definitely
> has enough critical mass to continue for many years to come with
> little or no marketing. Personally, I don't care if postgresql
> captures 1% of the market of 99% of the market, as long as it remains
> the solid, reliable dbms engine it is.
I care. More market share equals more jobs, which equals more people
working on the project. It's all well and good to treat Postgres as
an academic exercise, but at some point the work needs to be applied
to real world stuff. We are competing with real-world, commercial
projects right now, and the success of how well we do will directly
impact this project. Do you think that Red Hat will continue to employ
Tom Lane if Postgres fades away into a footnote and something else
becomes the database of choice for Red Hat? Do you realize that every
time a company chooses us, jobs are created for people who use,
test, and even develop PostgreSQL?
I also want to see PostgreSQL succeed in the marketplace because I
am frankly embarrassed that MySQL is considered the
"open source database." The open source community can do a lot better
than that. Not only is Postgres technically superior, but we are now
(IMO) morally superior, as we don't spread FUD and change our license
mid-stream in an attempt to make money.
> It's success is measured in the quality of its code, not the
> number of users.
Success is measured in constant improvement and growth. I don't want
PostgreSQL to be the best database system around that nobody uses.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200404282124
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFAkFr3vJuQZxSWSsgRAk8IAJ96vN6VuI2dMWmfxWB+yG/CrWTkogCgqBgo
rsUJMoM6oPEJ83ixpaXdvTo=
=zH3B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:30:23 -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: > I care. More market share equals more jobs, which equals more people > working on the project. It's all well and good to treat Postgres as > an academic exercise, but at some point the work needs to be applied > to real world stuff. We are competing with real-world, commercial > projects right now, and the success of how well we do will directly > impact this project. Do you think that Red Hat will continue to employ > Tom Lane if Postgres fades away into a footnote and something else > becomes the database of choice for Red Hat? Do you realize that every > time a company chooses us, jobs are created for people who use, > test, and even develop PostgreSQL? And more support questions get asked taking time away from development. For companies the net balance is probably in postgres' favor on average. However, getting individuals to use postgres who have no background in databases may be a net minus. Hopefully that won't happen. It will be interesting to see what happens to the support lists after the windows port is available.
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > But betamax was better ;) But that was the point the the comment, wasn't it ? It is not always the better technical solution that wins. With PostgreSQL not being a commercially licensed RDBMS, it is not so much about sales but rather "mindshare" (I hate that word, but can't think of a better one). Without a suitably high profile the project will not attract the potential skills of developers and companies paying developers out there to continue moving the feature set and quality forward. rgds, -- Peter
On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 00:48, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:30:23 -0000,
> Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote:
> > I care. More market share equals more jobs, which equals more people
> > working on the project. It's all well and good to treat Postgres as
> > an academic exercise, but at some point the work needs to be applied
> > to real world stuff. We are competing with real-world, commercial
> > projects right now, and the success of how well we do will directly
> > impact this project. Do you think that Red Hat will continue to employ
> > Tom Lane if Postgres fades away into a footnote and something else
> > becomes the database of choice for Red Hat? Do you realize that every
> > time a company chooses us, jobs are created for people who use,
> > test, and even develop PostgreSQL?
>
> And more support questions get asked taking time away from development.
> For companies the net balance is probably in postgres' favor on average.
> However, getting individuals to use postgres who have no background
> in databases may be a net minus. Hopefully that won't happen. It will
> be interesting to see what happens to the support lists after the
> windows port is available.
>
Which is one of the reasons that I think chasing my$ql's market is the
wrong way to go. We need to be looking for oracle/db2 converts... or at
the least informix/progress/m$ or other 2nd tier databases that we are
most likely already superior too.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: >On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 00:48, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > >>On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:30:23 -0000, >> Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: >> >> >>>I care. More market share equals more jobs, which equals more people >>>working on the project. It's all well and good to treat Postgres as >>>an academic exercise, but at some point the work needs to be applied >>>to real world stuff. We are competing with real-world, commercial >>>projects right now, and the success of how well we do will directly >>>impact this project. Do you think that Red Hat will continue to employ >>>Tom Lane if Postgres fades away into a footnote and something else >>>becomes the database of choice for Red Hat? Do you realize that every >>>time a company chooses us, jobs are created for people who use, >>>test, and even develop PostgreSQL? >>> >>> >>And more support questions get asked taking time away from development. >>For companies the net balance is probably in postgres' favor on average. >>However, getting individuals to use postgres who have no background >>in databases may be a net minus. Hopefully that won't happen. It will >>be interesting to see what happens to the support lists after the >>windows port is available. >> >> >> > >Which is one of the reasons that I think chasing my$ql's market is the >wrong way to go. We need to be looking for oracle/db2 converts... or at >the least informix/progress/m$ or other 2nd tier databases that we are >most likely already superior too. > > > I think the pg grassroots are low end users (ie: people with less knowledge and budgets than the established parties). Everything of an opensource nature has always gained popularity and strength from these people. MySQL has a constituency that came from here. The grass roots are people who are willing to invest the energy needed to adopt to change which is what pg represents. Robert Bernier
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:26:37 -0400, Robert Bernier <robert.bernier5@sympatico.ca> wrote: > > I think the pg grassroots are low end users (ie: people with less > knowledge and budgets than the established parties). Everything of an > opensource nature has always gained popularity and strength from these > people. I think some users are, but I think that the ratio of users new to databases to those familiar with databases is going to be a lot higher for MYSQL. I think this will also be the case for postgres users running on Windows once the windows port is available. As long as people learn and give back by helping other people once they know more, things will probably be OK.
On Wednesday 28 April 2004 01:38 pm, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>Does anyone know of an open source project that *has* successfully > >> displaced a market of mature, established products WITHOUT a > >> commercial entity providing marketing, support & direction? > > > > gcc? > > Nope.... most big houses will use Intel/Borland/Vc++ or whatever comes > with Solaris. > > In fact, I can not think of a single project that has displaced a > commercial one, without market force behind it. > What happens is the software gets to a point where it is commercially viable, but very few realize it. Then a few daring people adopt it and start making money with it. Eventually, a market for that particular software is created, with people who use the software, people who support the software, and people who write the software all making money for what they are doing. At this point, it becomes a market vs. market fight. What Open Source has proven is that when it comes to the software, having the entire marketplace participate in the process is much more effective than having a single company hold the keys to it. Our marketing plans are weak (comparatively), but our code is extremely robust. That's why when the game reaches this point, Open Source starts to win. The commercial software can't compete technically. Eventually, our software is so vastly superior to theirs that it is no contest. Case in point: Compare the latest Windows to Linux 2.6 in a technical way. No contest, hands down, Linux is superior. It runs on almost any platform, it runs almost any software, and it has features that make Windows obselete as an OS. Even if Longhorn with all of the jazz was delivered tomorrow, Linux would still be vastly superior. Why does it work this way? It is because with proprietary software, one company has to support the entire market. With open source software, the market supports the entire market. Open source software scales wonderfully; proprietary only works for small markets. Open source software markets can literally take over the world; proprietary software cannot. Linux is already a huge market, complete with everything you'd need to evangelize, develop, and use the software. The market for PostgreSQL is small compared to Linux, but it is there. We have independent contractors and small companies doing for PostgreSQL what Red Hat and IBM are doing for Linux. We are seeing bigger companies join the market, and we are seeing daily more people joining our ranks as developers, users, and evangelizers. The difference between PostgreSQL and MySQL is that we arrived here naturally, while MySQL had a jump start with the infusion of investment money. They are still dependent on that cash and until they can grow beyond it, they can't succeed like Linux. PostgreSQL has already grown to a stable point. The only way to go is up. There is a saying in Korean "yong du sa mi" which means "The head of a dragon but the tail of a snake". The meaning is that if you start out really big, you end up really little. You have to build up slowly, and carefully, to avoid becoming just "the head of a dragon". Real dragons take many hundreds of years to create. Here comes the predictions: (1) Either MySQL becomes like us and the Linux community, or it dies. Signs show that this is not happening as long as it is controlled by a single company. You can't have a split personality like this. It's a matter of time. (2) PostgreSQL will be superior to Oracle and DB2 in the same way it is vastly superior to MySQL. It may not be tomorrow, but it will happen eventually. -- Jonathan Gardner jgardner@jonathangardner.net
Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > >And more support questions get asked taking time away from development. >For companies the net balance is probably in postgres' favor on average. >However, getting individuals to use postgres who have no background >in databases may be a net minus. Hopefully that won't happen. It will >be interesting to see what happens to the support lists after the >windows port is available. > > I don't see support questions as being that much of a detractor. Maybe if it happens, we can start a Pgsql-newbie's list and initially feature those who provide commercial support for the RDBMS? Understand that everyone has to start somewhere, and having a fresh perspective on it from a newbie may help make a better project. We just need a little more insulation between newbie support and development (though the lack of such insulation is a general strength of open source software). I personally think that the way to do this is to create a good set of documentation which will help newbies with no RDBMS experience begin to understand the basics of PostgreSQL. For better or worse, MySQL owes most of their success to the newbies. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
We have a novice list already. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Travers wrote: > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > > > > >And more support questions get asked taking time away from development. > >For companies the net balance is probably in postgres' favor on average. > >However, getting individuals to use postgres who have no background > >in databases may be a net minus. Hopefully that won't happen. It will > >be interesting to see what happens to the support lists after the > >windows port is available. > > > > > I don't see support questions as being that much of a detractor. Maybe > if it happens, we can start a Pgsql-newbie's list and initially feature > those who provide commercial support for the RDBMS? Understand that > everyone has to start somewhere, and having a fresh perspective on it > from a newbie may help make a better project. We just need a little > more insulation between newbie support and development (though the lack > of such insulation is a general strength of open source software). > > I personally think that the way to do this is to create a good set of > documentation which will help newbies with no RDBMS experience begin to > understand the basics of PostgreSQL. For better or worse, MySQL owes > most of their success to the newbies. > > Best Wishes, > Chris Travers > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce wrote:
> Now, if you are asking about marketing, yea, we don't have much in that
> area right now, and we need it. I think your point was that we need a
> single controlling company to provide marketing because if there are
> many, there is little incentive to market PostgreSQL because all the
> other companies are taking advantage of it. That is mostly true.
Yep, this is one of the key issues.
Right now, there isn't a group of people (with a decent budget) who get up
in the morning and say, "what can I do today to make Postgres more widely
adopted?" And that's a big problem. And it's not just marketing: who's
working on partnerships? Who making sure all of the ISVs add Postgres to
their list of supported databases?
> However, I would argue that Red Hat providing support was more important
> than Red Hat marketing, and we do have that with a number of companies
> now, and
I think we may have to "agree to disagree" on this.
> SRA is going to be announcing world-wide support soon (not just
> Japan), and we have other venture capital guys looking a forming
> companies.
This is a good step, but it's not the same as a Postgres-focused effort.
SRA's business (and HP's, and IBM's, and Cap Gemini's, and other companies
which are providing support for open source projects) is not about making
Postgres ubiquitous -- it's about selling services.
If a customer came to {SRA,IBM,etc.} with a large suitcase of cash and said,
"will you support Firebird for me?", you'd say yes!
> My concern about a single company, as all of us are, is that we kill the
> community that created the software, which then burdens the single
> company to steer development, leading to disaster.
Understood, and that's the potential catch-22. This is the problem with
capital: no smart investor is going to fund a company to promote and
support an project like Postgres if there's nothing to prevent 5 other
investors and teams from doing the exact same thing. There MAY be a way to
form something that's supportive and respectful of the community, and I
think it's worth trying to figure that out.
Bottom line: the Postgres project is at a stage where the non-technical
factors (marketing, partnerships) are at least as important as the technical
ones. Postgres may "lose" because of lacking technology (such as win32
support, though coming soon), but will not necessarily "win" with the best
technology.
-andy
Andrew Payne wrote: > > My concern about a single company, as all of us are, is that we kill the > > community that created the software, which then burdens the single > > company to steer development, leading to disaster. > > Understood, and that's the potential catch-22. This is the problem with > capital: no smart investor is going to fund a company to promote and > support an project like Postgres if there's nothing to prevent 5 other > investors and teams from doing the exact same thing. There MAY be a way to > form something that's supportive and respectful of the community, and I > think it's worth trying to figure that out. > > Bottom line: the Postgres project is at a stage where the non-technical > factors (marketing, partnerships) are at least as important as the technical > ones. Postgres may "lose" because of lacking technology (such as win32 > support, though coming soon), but will not necessarily "win" with the best > technology. Remember, we all came to PostgreSQL because of the community development, so we can't expect us to get excited about something that risks that just to "win", as you say. If we had gone in this direction with Great Bridge, we would have seriously injured PostgreSQL and it might not be what it is today. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce wrote: > Remember, we all came to PostgreSQL because of the community > development, so we can't expect us to get excited about something that > risks that just to "win", as you say. If we had gone in this direction > with Great Bridge, we would have seriously injured PostgreSQL and it > might not be what it is today. The "direction" I think I'm suggesting is actually not all that different from Great Bridge. And to your point, Great Bridge failed yet Postgres still thrived. The difference is that you could now correct for Great Bridge's problems, which include but are not limited to: timing (4 years has changed a lot for commercial acceptance of open source), funding ($25m was too much), and strategy (this is not an quick attempt to copy Red Hat). I think such a project, with the right parameters, is very fundable. If anyone wants to talk about that, you should drop me an email off-list; we're probably stepping out of topic for the hacker and advocacy lists. -andy
> > The difference is that you could now correct for Great Bridge's problems, > which include but are not limited to: timing (4 years has changed a lot for > commercial acceptance of open source), funding ($25m was too much), and > strategy (this is not an quick attempt to copy Red Hat). > > I think such a project, with the right parameters, is very fundable. If > anyone wants to talk about that, you should drop me an email off-list; we're > probably stepping out of topic for the hacker and advocacy lists. Why would someone fund a "new" PostgreSQL project when there are several viable commercial entities doing the job right now? J > > -andy > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Joshua wrote: > Why would someone fund a "new" PostgreSQL project when there are several > viable commercial entities doing the job right now? Four words: "size of marketing budget". As a technology guy, it bugs me to acknowledge that. But having lived through this a few times, it is the way it works. -andy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is > anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. Dear Bruce, Taking the example of pgAdmin III, which reached nearly one million hits in December (http://www.pgadmin.org/stats/webalizer), nothing seems impossible for PostgreSQL. Why not create an all-in-one bundle offering PostgreSQL, Apache, Php and PhpPgAdmin for Win32 and ... mass-release it. There is no need to create a complete installer. There could be a single installer executing other installers (like it is sometimes the case in the Win32 world). So that installers remain different. A single web page like "http://win.postgresql.org" in 40 languages is enough to mass-release PostgreSQL. With an installer and a single web page, PostgreSQL Win32 could quickly reach one million downloads every month. There is no need to look for complicated strategies. Every month, there can be 10% more downloads. In the end, people will even forget the name of MySQL. Cheers, Jean-Michel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAjW11extoHHj2YFMRAggVAJ0e/W4D/tnm/AtMK0nbjfDROtv/fwCfQ/eC KAnaz5T3PCceVlVS6zirsqg= =N1NM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:43:36AM +0200, Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
> > Do you expect translate PostgreSQL-win installer to foreign languages?
>
> Probably not, this is too much work. But this can come in a second stage.
I don't think it's a lot of work. The PostgreSQL translators spent
time with translation of things like Xlog messages or the other
"deep-in-backend" stuff so I think they will happy with someting
more visible and usable like PostgreSQL installer ;-)
The important is if the installer code support some way how user can
selects a language.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/
On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 21:56, scott.marlowe wrote: > On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Andrew Payne wrote: > > > > > Bruce asked an excellent question: > > > > > My question is, "What can we learn from MySQL?" I don't know there is > > > anything, but I think it makes sense to ask the question. > > Ignore the opposition and focus. Look outward, not inward. Best Regards, Simon
I'm certain you guys could do a far better installer than the one Oracle has, which is very, very fragile. There's all kinds of wonkiness to try and get it to work on a non-supported linux distro (gentoo in my case), and from talking to people who've dealt with it on redhat it's no better. Also, if possible, I think an installer that plays nice with package management systems would be important. Many users want to use their OS's package system to handle install and upgrade rather than some other installer. On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 12:10:01PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 16:36:57 -0400, > pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote: > > > > Ease of use is VERY important, but few suggestions that address this are > > ever really accepted. Yes, focusing on the functionality is the primary > > concern, but "how" you set it up and deploy it is VERY important. You guys > > need to remember, people are coming from a world where MySQL, Oracle, and > > MSSQL all have nice setup programs. > > "nice" must be in the eye of the beholder. I have used Oracle's installer > to install a client and was not amused by it need hundreds of megabtyes > to do a client install. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant jim@nasby.net Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America 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?"