Thread: Postgresql usage clip.
http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2000/05/26/stories/0426211w.htm -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."
What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though. e -- This message was my two cents worth. Please deposit two cents into my e-gold account by following this link: http://rootworks.com/twocentsworth.cgi?102861 275A B627 1826 D627 ED35 B8DF 7DDE 4428 0F5C 4454
Erich <hh@cyberpass.net> writes:
> What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in
> efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though.
And Oracle. I would love to see more "neutral" performance tests between
databases though. I suppose MS SQL could be could good for somethings as it
is based on the code bought from Sybase.
Still, the effiency can be a lot of things. I like PostgreSQL mainly
because I can develop and deploy applications in a cost efficient way with
it. But this equation will ofcourse depend on your organizations demands
and skills.
Regards,
Gunnar
At 12:57 PM 29-05-2000 -0700, Erich wrote: > >What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in >efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though. Actually it said efficacy - more like effectiveness. You can be efficient but not effective and vice versa. Well whatever it is, it's a nice article to show the PHBs. Cheerio, Link.
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
> >What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in
> >efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though.
>
> Actually it said efficacy - more like effectiveness. You can be efficient
> but not effective and vice versa.
Efficient but not effective... you mean like MySQL? :-P
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.chapelperilous.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Lord gave us farmers two strong hands so we could grab as much as
we could with both of them."
-- Joseph Heller, "Catch-22"
"Brett W. McCoy" wrote: > > On Tue, 30 May 2000, Lincoln Yeoh wrote: > > > >What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in > > >efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though. > > > > Actually it said efficacy - more like effectiveness. You can be efficient > > but not effective and vice versa. > > Efficient but not effective... you mean like MySQL? :-P This has "fire" written all over it.... But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex structures that Pgsql can. Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited in platform support compared to mysql. Heck, on a global level, we're also managing Access, MSSQL, Oracle, Access, and even Filemaker. They all have features that others can't even come close to. That's why homogeneity in the data center, or the desktop, is a bad thing. Use what works best, when it works best. :-) -Ronabop
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > "Brett W. McCoy" wrote: > > > > On Tue, 30 May 2000, Lincoln Yeoh wrote: > > > > > >What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in > > > >efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though. > > > > > > Actually it said efficacy - more like effectiveness. You can be efficient > > > but not effective and vice versa. > > > > Efficient but not effective... you mean like MySQL? :-P > > This has "fire" written all over it.... > > But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise > level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster > simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex structures that > Pgsql can. Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited > in platform support compared to mysql. Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
> This has "fire" written all over it....
>
> But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise
> level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster
> simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex structures that
> Pgsql can. Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited
> in platform support compared to mysql.
MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data
or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and
for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrity
or supprto for views. But beyond that, you really need something bigger
like Postgres (for a big site with a small budget) or Oracle (for a huge
site with a huger budget).
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.chapelperilous.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Lord gave us farmers two strong hands so we could grab as much as
we could with both of them."
-- Joseph Heller, "Catch-22"
On Mon, 29 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > This has "fire" written all over it....
> >
> > But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise
> > level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster
> > simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex structures that
> > Pgsql can. Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited
> > in platform support compared to mysql.
>
> Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
Actually, I daresay PostgreSQL runs on more platforms, than other RDBMSes.
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.chapelperilous.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Lord gave us farmers two strong hands so we could grab as much as
we could with both of them."
-- Joseph Heller, "Catch-22"
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > > > This has "fire" written all over it.... > > > > > > But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise > > > level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster > > > simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex structures that > > > Pgsql can. Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited > > > in platform support compared to mysql. > > > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :( > > Actually, I daresay PostgreSQL runs on more platforms, than other RDBMSes. That was my understanding too ... which is why I'm really curious as to which one MySQL runs on that we don't ...
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited > in platform support compared to mysql. > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :( Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98? mySQL even does OS/2. Really. -Ronabop
At 10:28 PM 29-05-2000 -0400, Brett W. McCoy wrote: >On Tue, 30 May 2000, Lincoln Yeoh wrote: > >> >What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in >> >efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though. >> >> Actually it said efficacy - more like effectiveness. You can be efficient >> but not effective and vice versa. > >Efficient but not effective... you mean like MySQL? :-P Now, now, be nice :). MySQL is pretty good at most of the things it does and attempts to do. And I really like the GET LOCK feature/function, is it possible to add something like that to Postgresql? And it's fast :). It seems that with fsync off Postgresql can be just as fast with updates, but I'm still reluctant to do that as data recovery methods don't seem as developed on Postgresql - arguably you could say because there's less need of them compared to other databases ;). But that may only be true if fsync is _on_. (I get the impression that you can specify fsync on a per connection basis with v7.0, that'll be real cool - will be tempted to start up two connections per app). How fast comparatively are inserts for Postgresql? Cheerio, Link.
"Brett W. McCoy" wrote: > MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data > or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and > for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrity > or supprto for views. But beyond that, you really need something bigger > like Postgres (for a big site with a small budget) or Oracle (for a huge > site with a huger budget). Have a db comparison toy. Lots of fun. http://mysql.com/crash-me-choose.htmy -Bop
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :( > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98? > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. For home use/development, run either Linux or FreeBSD in another partition on your Win9x machine. Or, even use one of the 'WinLinux' style distributions that cooexist with Windows very well. You'll (and PostgreSQL will) be much happier with a unix-like environment (which Cygwin duplicates anyway for the Win32 PostgreSQL server) for running the PostgreSQL server. Get VMWare and run Win9x in a window on your Linux partition to test Win9x apps if you must run Win9x. Or, port Cygwin to Win9x so that PostgreSQL can run on Win9x. However, the point is taken -- MySQL does Win9x. We don't. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
> > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
>
> Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
> mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2).
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.chapelperilous.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello. Jim Rockford's machine, this is Larry Doheny's machine. Will you
please have your master call my master at his convenience? Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
-- "The Rockford Files"
"Brett W. McCoy" wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > > limited > > in platform support compared to mysql. And: > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98? > > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. > But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2). > Brett W. McCoy Yes. How much money has to be paid to run postgreSQL on Win95? Is it comparable in cost to get support for that platform? :-) -Ron -- Brought to you from iBop the iMac, a MacOS, Win95, Win98, LinuxPPC machine, which is currently in LinuxPPC land. Your bopping may vary.
Lamar Owen wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? > 98? > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. > For home use/development, run either Linux or FreeBSD in another partition on > your Win9x machine. Or, even use one of the 'WinLinux' style distributions > that cooexist with Windows very well. You'll (and PostgreSQL will) be much > happier with a unix-like environment (which Cygwin duplicates anyway for the > Win32 PostgreSQL server) for running the PostgreSQL server. Get VMWare and run > Win9x in a window on your Linux partition to test Win9x apps if you must run > Win9x. Hm. See my .sig (missing from prior posts).... yes, it's nice that a hardware platform can be bent to work with certain applications. I do lots of bending. However, most users prefer to get applications for their platform, not the other way round. Not all of us are platform agnostic. ;-) > However, the point is taken -- MySQL does Win9x. We don't. Yet? -Ronabop -- Brought to you from iBop the iMac, a MacOS, Win95, Win98, LinuxPPC machine, which is currently in LinuxPPC land. Your bopping may vary.
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
> > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
> > > mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
> > But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2).
> > Brett W. McCoy
>
> Yes. How much money has to be paid to run postgreSQL on Win95? Is it
> comparable in cost to get support for that platform?
Can PostgreSQL run on Win9x with CygWin32?
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.chapelperilous.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello. Jim Rockford's machine, this is Larry Doheny's machine. Will you
please have your master call my master at his convenience? Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
-- "The Rockford Files"
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95?
> 98? > mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
>
> For home use/development, run either Linux or FreeBSD in another partition on
> your Win9x machine. Or, even use one of the 'WinLinux' style distributions
> that cooexist with Windows very well. You'll (and PostgreSQL will) be much
> happier with a unix-like environment (which Cygwin duplicates anyway for the
> Win32 PostgreSQL server) for running the PostgreSQL server. Get VMWare and run
> Win9x in a window on your Linux partition to test Win9x apps if you must run
> Win9x.
>
> Or, port Cygwin to Win9x so that PostgreSQL can run on Win9x.
CygWin does run on Windows 9x, doesn't it? Or at least it used to!
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.chapelperilous.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello. Jim Rockford's machine, this is Larry Doheny's machine. Will you
please have your master call my master at his convenience? Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
-- "The Rockford Files"
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > > > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :( > > > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98? > > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. > > But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2). And, I seem to recall someone did an OS/2 binary for PostgreSQL ...
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > "Brett W. McCoy" wrote: > > MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data > > or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and > > for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrity > > or supprto for views. But beyond that, you really need something bigger > > like Postgres (for a big site with a small budget) or Oracle (for a huge > > site with a huger budget). > > Have a db comparison toy. Lots of fun. > > http://mysql.com/crash-me-choose.htmy And, sadly, totally inaccurate *sigh* We've been working with them since the beginning of time to get them to fix their various benchmarks for accuracy ... we just recently had a long thread on it where one of the guys workign witht the MySQL camp was going to push for changes ... but even then, i believe taht there will be a helluva-lot of discrepencies :(
On Tue, 30 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
> >
> > > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
> > >
> > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
> > > mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
> >
> > But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2).
>
> And, I seem to recall someone did an OS/2 binary for PostgreSQL ...
Gooing by the language in the User Manual, PostgreSQL does seem to work on
Win9x:
"...The only part of the library to really be installed is the libpq.dll
library. This file should in most cases be placed in the WINNT\SYSTEM32
directory (or in WINDOWS\SYSTEM on a Windows 95/98 system)..."
The documentation references using MVC++.
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.chapelperilous.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello. Jim Rockford's machine, this is Larry Doheny's machine. Will you
please have your master call my master at his convenience? Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
-- "The Rockford Files"
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > > > > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98? > > > > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. > > > But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2). > > > Brett W. McCoy > > > > Yes. How much money has to be paid to run postgreSQL on Win95? Is it > > comparable in cost to get support for that platform? > > Can PostgreSQL run on Win9x with CygWin32? I have heard we can't because CywWin doesn't support all features on that platform. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > > > > > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :( > > > > > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98? > > > mySQL even does OS/2. Really. > > > > But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2). > > And, I seem to recall someone did an OS/2 binary for PostgreSQL ... > Wasn't that a libpq client? -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
> Gooing by the language in the User Manual, PostgreSQL does seem to work on > Win9x: > > "...The only part of the library to really be installed is the libpq.dll > library. This file should in most cases be placed in the WINNT\SYSTEM32 > directory (or in WINDOWS\SYSTEM on a Windows 95/98 system)..." > > The documentation references using MVC++. We support WIn95/98 clients, not servers. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > "...The only part of the library to really be installed is the libpq.dll
> > library. This file should in most cases be placed in the WINNT\SYSTEM32
> > directory (or in WINDOWS\SYSTEM on a Windows 95/98 system)..."
> >
> > The documentation references using MVC++.
>
> We support WIn95/98 clients, not servers.
My mistake.
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.chapelperilous.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill.
-- R. Clopton
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> We support WIn95/98 clients, not servers.
I thought we did have a cygwin-based server port? If not, there's
a heckuva lot of useless "PORTNAME=win" conditional compilation in
the backend.
Mind you, I don't think any sane dbadmin would use Windoze as a
platform for a mission-critical application, regardless of database
engine choice. So the cygwin port is pretty much a toy IMHO.
If MySQL wants to have the toy-application market segment, they're
welcome to it.
regards, tom lane
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > We support WIn95/98 clients, not servers. > > I thought we did have a cygwin-based server port? If not, there's > a heckuva lot of useless "PORTNAME=win" conditional compilation in > the backend. > > Mind you, I don't think any sane dbadmin would use Windoze as a > platform for a mission-critical application, regardless of database > engine choice. So the cygwin port is pretty much a toy IMHO. > If MySQL wants to have the toy-application market segment, they're > welcome to it. We support servers on NT, but not on Win95/98. Cygwin supports both, but the Win95/98 has missing features that we need. People have asked about it, and they have said they were going to try Win95/98 and report back on the problems they had, but no one has. I assume they got lots of "unimplemented" messages from Cygwin and gave up. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: >> > We support WIn95/98 clients, not servers. >> >> I thought we did have a cygwin-based server port? If not, there's >> a heckuva lot of useless "PORTNAME=win" conditional compilation in >> the backend. >> >> Mind you, I don't think any sane dbadmin would use Windoze as a >> platform for a mission-critical application, regardless of database >> engine choice. So the cygwin port is pretty much a toy IMHO. >> If MySQL wants to have the toy-application market segment, they're >> welcome to it. > >We support servers on NT, but not on Win95/98. Cygwin supports both, >but the Win95/98 has missing features that we need. People have asked >about it, and they have said they were going to try Win95/98 and report >back on the problems they had, but no one has. I assume they got lots >of "unimplemented" messages from Cygwin and gave up. IMO, having a 'toy' server during development on a win9x platform would be really nice. Coming from a MySQL/PHP background,it sure is nice to take the laptop out on a nice day and be able to develop 'real' applications that are thenmoved to a real server platform. I just tried the latest NT port binaries, hoping that I could at least start up the server process. Even an extremelylimited server on this platform would be welcome. Sometimes you don't get to choose your development OS :( I have Cygwin installed, but when I try to start postgres.exe I get the following error message: FATAL 1: SetPgUserName: no entry in host passwd file I also find no postmaster in the install. So am I just wasting time? Thanks, John -- /* SteeleSoft Consulting John Steele - Systems Analyst/Programmer * We also walk dogs... jsteele@writeme.com * http://www.gamecomputer.com/ssc/ */
> >We support servers on NT, but not on Win95/98. Cygwin supports both, > >but the Win95/98 has missing features that we need. People > have asked > >about it, and they have said they were going to try Win95/98 > and report > >back on the problems they had, but no one has. I assume > they got lots > >of "unimplemented" messages from Cygwin and gave up. > > I just tried the latest NT port binaries, hoping that I > could at least start up the server process. Even an > extremely limited server on this platform would be welcome. > Sometimes you don't get to choose your development OS :( > > I have Cygwin installed, but when I try to start > postgres.exe I get the following error message: > > FATAL 1: SetPgUserName: no entry in host passwd file > > I also find no postmaster in the install. So am I just > wasting time? > > Thanks, > John I tried and succeeded in getting Postgres to run on an NT server. There are some directions on here that are helpful. There is a util that collects all the user names and groups and puts them in a /etc/groups and /etc/users files. Someone directed me to this site http://www.freebsd.org/~kevlo/postgres/portNT.html Respectfully - Joseph Showalter
Here are some ideas about the Win9x port:
Cygwin runs on Win9x quite well, I think only some security features are
missing. We have made some investigation with pgsql on win95 (with Cygwin
B20.1) and found that the problem is (should be ;-) somewhere in server side
libpq (pg_flush) and here I was stopped due "unsufficient resources" (=
time) ;-). I have tested the SysV IPC functionality and it worked well, so
this should not be the problem.
I will try it with the newest cygwin library and do more debugging.
There are also some new interesting features in the newest cygwin that could
be implemented in the WinNT port (like AF_UNIX sockets)
Dan
PS: some money would help ;-)
On Tue, 30 May 2000, John Steele wrote: > > IMO, having a 'toy' server during development on a win9x platform > would be really nice. Coming from a MySQL/PHP background, it sure is > nice to take the laptop out on a nice day and be able to develop 'real' > applications that are then moved to a real server platform. That's why I have FreeBSD on my laptop. If I'm going to be gone for any length of time or it's just nice outside I have a mobile development platform all set to go. PostgreSQL, apache, php, qmail, xemacs and everything else I need for development, wireless lan to keep access to the net if I'm close enough. Even have wine installed in case I feel like playing solitare! Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
Hi Gunnar, Great Bridge has been running PostgreSQL against several of the leading commercial contenders in some professional benchmarks (TPC-C, TPC-D, AS3AP), and will be releasing the findings in June. I think people here will be very happy with the results... :) Regards, Ned Lilly VP, Hacker Relations Great Bridge, LLC Gunnar R|nning wrote: > Erich <hh@cyberpass.net> writes: > > > What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in > > efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though. > > And Oracle. I would love to see more "neutral" performance tests between > databases though. I suppose MS SQL could be could good for somethings as it > is based on the code bought from Sybase. > > Still, the effiency can be a lot of things. I like PostgreSQL mainly > because I can develop and deploy applications in a cost efficient way with > it. But this equation will ofcourse depend on your organizations demands > and skills. > > Regards, > > Gunnar
John Steele wrote: > IMO, having a 'toy' server during development on a win9x platform would be really nice. Coming from a MySQL/PHP background,it sure is nice to take the laptop out on a nice day and be able to develop 'real' applications that are thenmoved to a real server platform. Why don't you just run Linux on your laptop? Dual boot if you need to Windoze for your day-job. Then you could develop a real application on a real operating system. -Ron-
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Ron Peterson wrote:
> John Steele wrote:
>
> > IMO, having a 'toy' server during development on a win9x platform would be really nice. Coming from a MySQL/PHP
background,it sure is nice to take the laptop out on a nice day and be able to develop 'real' applications that are
thenmoved to a real server platform.
>
> Why don't you just run Linux on your laptop? Dual boot if you need to
> Windoze for your day-job. Then you could develop a real application on
> a real operating system.
Or score a hat trick. Load FBSD4.0 and Linux along with Windoze.
Use os-bs as a boot loader in the windoze partition. I do this.
I get to test Pg on both of my work environments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Richmond Community Mental Health Center
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Good, MIS Coordinator tomg@ { admin | q8 } .nrnet.org
Phone: 718-354-5528
Fax: 718-354-5056
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Richmond Systems PostgreSQL s l a c k w a r e
Are Powered By: RDBMS |---------- linux
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Chmara wrote: > "Brett W. McCoy" wrote: > > MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data > > or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and > > for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrity > > or supprto for views. But beyond that, you really need something bigger > > like Postgres (for a big site with a small budget) or Oracle (for a huge > > site with a huger budget). > > Have a db comparison toy. Lots of fun. > > http://mysql.com/crash-me-choose.htmy There was some discussion about exactly that crashme this month. Some detailed analysis turned out that many places where it says "unsupported" in reality mean "does not support MySQL's non standard syntax". Others are totally mislabeled. And on the performance, it triggered a problem in PostgreSQL that is unlikely in real world scenarios (creating and dropping 20,000 tables first, blowing up a system catalog). Then running the test queries with the blown up catalog. Really smart benchmark :-) Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
John Steele wrote:
> IMO, having a 'toy' server during development on a win9x platform would be really nice. Coming from a MySQL/PHP
background,it sure is nice to take the laptop out on a nice day and be able to develop 'real' applications that are
thenmoved to a real server platform.
What kind of LAPTOP do you mean? Wouldn't a slightly bigger
disk let you install NT or Win2K as alternate boot to have at
least something worth installing development tools at all?
> I just tried the latest NT port binaries, hoping that I could at least start up the server process. Even an
extremelylimited server on this platform would be welcome. Sometimes you don't get to choose your development OS :(
If a piece doesn't fit, don't force it, use a bigger hammer.
Postgres needs some functionality from the OS. Seems Win9x
doesn't provide all that, but mucking around with
requirements of Postgres is the wrong way here. Especially
since Win9x was already dead when born, only that Microsoft
keeps it in some zombie state until they have something
better. Seems Win2K is - so I think it's wasted efford to
hack Win9x support into Postgres.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Jan Wieck wrote: > > Ron Chmara wrote: > > "Brett W. McCoy" wrote: > > > MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data > > > or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and > > > for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrity > > > or supprto for views. But beyond that, you really need something bigger > > > like Postgres (for a big site with a small budget) or Oracle (for a huge > > > site with a huger budget). > > > > Have a db comparison toy. Lots of fun. > > > > http://mysql.com/crash-me-choose.htmy > > There was some discussion about exactly that crashme this > month. Some detailed analysis turned out that many places > where it says "unsupported" in reality mean "does not support > MySQL's non standard syntax". Others are totally mislabeled. > > And on the performance, it triggered a problem in PostgreSQL > that is unlikely in real world scenarios (creating and > dropping 20,000 tables first, blowing up a system catalog). > Then running the test queries with the blown up catalog. > Really smart benchmark :-) Well it *is* called crashme.
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Joseph Shraibman wrote: > Jan Wieck wrote: > > > > Ron Chmara wrote: > > > "Brett W. McCoy" wrote: > > > > MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data > > > > or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and > > > > for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrity > > > > or supprto for views. But beyond that, you really need something bigger > > > > like Postgres (for a big site with a small budget) or Oracle (for a huge > > > > site with a huger budget). > > > > > > Have a db comparison toy. Lots of fun. > > > > > > http://mysql.com/crash-me-choose.htmy > > > > There was some discussion about exactly that crashme this > > month. Some detailed analysis turned out that many places > > where it says "unsupported" in reality mean "does not support > > MySQL's non standard syntax". Others are totally mislabeled. > > > > And on the performance, it triggered a problem in PostgreSQL > > that is unlikely in real world scenarios (creating and > > dropping 20,000 tables first, blowing up a system catalog). > > Then running the test queries with the blown up catalog. > > Really smart benchmark :-) > > Well it *is* called crashme. > Doesn't really matter what it's called if it's sole purpose is to make your product loog good and everyone else's look bad, it may as well come from Redmond. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
>We support servers on NT, but not on Win95/98. Cygwin supports both, What's the performance like? NT doesn't do forks well and Postgres uses forks right? Cheerio, Link.