Thread: Anyone got time to review an article?
I've got one in the works for http://databasejournal.com/, and I was hoping someone could look it over for me to catch any egregious errors. Please email me off-list at tom@infoether.com to keep the traffic down... Thanks, Tom -- Tom Copeland <tom@infoether.com> InfoEther
On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 11:04, Tom Copeland wrote: > I've got one in the works for http://databasejournal.com/, and I was > hoping someone could look it over for me to catch any egregious errors. This article is up here now: http://databasejournal.com/features/postgresql/article.php/3437821 Thanks to Merlin Moncure and Robert Bernier for their helpful suggestions, and long live PostgreSQL! Yours, Tom
Tom Copeland wrote: > This article is up here now: > > http://databasejournal.com/features/postgresql/article.php/3437821 > > Thanks to Merlin Moncure and Robert Bernier for their helpful > suggestions, and long live PostgreSQL! What I found quite irritating is that the forum posts below ("PostgreSQL Forum") are not about PostgreSQL but really MS SQL, i.e. the MS SQL forum is linked into this article. If you look at the available database forums, you will see that there is no PostgreSQL forum (but e.g. a MySQL one). Perhaps you can point that out to the Databasejournal people so the would fix it. I liked your article. Best Regards, Michael Paesold
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 13:40, Michael Paesold wrote: > Tom Copeland wrote: > > > This article is up here now: > > > > http://databasejournal.com/features/postgresql/article.php/3437821 > > > > Thanks to Merlin Moncure and Robert Bernier for their helpful > > suggestions, and long live PostgreSQL! > What I found quite irritating is that the forum posts below ("PostgreSQL > Forum") are not about PostgreSQL but really MS SQL, i.e. the MS SQL forum is > linked into this article. If you look at the available database forums, you > will see that there is no PostgreSQL forum (but e.g. a MySQL one). > > Perhaps you can point that out to the Databasejournal people so the would > fix it. Good catch, I've dropped them a line, thanks! > I liked your article. Thanks! Yours, Tom
Tom, > > I've got one in the works for http://databasejournal.com/, and I was > > hoping someone could look it over for me to catch any egregious errors. I'm on vacation, so I don't have the ability to test the actual SQL. The article text is fine. You might want to, in future articles, suggest that people run EXPLAIN ANALYZE and not just EXPLAIN in order to see when the query planner is estimating wrong. BTW, the queries that GForge uses to generate the category counts for the trove map are egregiously bad and generate wrong counts to boot. They're basically a loop of queries, one *per category*, when the whole thing could be done in a single query. I've been meaning to fix this for some time, but I got hung up on getting GForge installed on my dev machine. Maybe later ... -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 13:40, Michael Paesold wrote:
> What I found quite irritating is that the forum posts below ("PostgreSQL
> Forum") are not about PostgreSQL but really MS SQL, i.e. the MS SQL forum is
> linked into this article. If you look at the available database forums, you
> will see that there is no PostgreSQL forum (but e.g. a MySQL one).
>
> Perhaps you can point that out to the Databasejournal people so the would
> fix it.
There's a PostgreSQL forum up now:
http://forums.databasejournal.com/forumdisplay.php?s=53f8cab16be0ade340079ed45a58c270&forumid=2
Thanks for the suggestion,
Tom
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 23:39, Josh Berkus wrote: > I'm on vacation, so I don't have the ability to test the actual SQL. > The > article text is fine. You might want to, in future articles, suggest > that > people run EXPLAIN ANALYZE and not just EXPLAIN in order to see when > the > query planner is estimating wrong. Ah, good idea, thanks. > BTW, the queries that GForge uses to generate the category counts for > the > trove map are egregiously bad and generate wrong counts to boot. > They're > basically a loop of queries, one *per category*, when the whole thing > could > be done in a single query. Heh... I bet that's not the only set of hideous queries in there. Ah well... onwards and upwards... > I've been meaning to fix this for some > time, > but I got hung up on getting GForge installed on my dev machine. Maybe > later ... Maybe I can catch up with you on #postgresql sometime and we can sort of some of those problems... Yours, Tom
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 07:32, Tom Copeland wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 13:40, Michael Paesold wrote:
> > What I found quite irritating is that the forum posts below ("PostgreSQL
> > Forum") are not about PostgreSQL but really MS SQL, i.e. the MS SQL forum is
> > linked into this article. If you look at the available database forums, you
> > will see that there is no PostgreSQL forum (but e.g. a MySQL one).
> >
> > Perhaps you can point that out to the Databasejournal people so the would
> > fix it.
>
> There's a PostgreSQL forum up now:
>
> http://forums.databasejournal.com/forumdisplay.php?s=53f8cab16be0ade340079ed45a58c270&forumid=2
But at the bottom of the article, when you click on the "PostgreSQL
forum" you still get the MSSQL forum.
The poor little PostgreSQL forum there is dying from lack of attention,
with only two posts total ever...
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 12:52, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > There's a PostgreSQL forum up now: > > > > http://forums.databasejournal.com/forumdisplay.php?s=53f8cab16be0ade340079ed45a58c270&forumid=2 > > But at the bottom of the article, when you click on the "PostgreSQL > forum" you still get the MSSQL forum. Yup, my contact there says that a different team takes care of linking the articles to the correct forums, so that's lagging behind, argh. > The poor little PostgreSQL forum there is dying from lack of attention, > with only two posts total ever... May it live long and prosper... Yours, Tom