Thread: Re: Which Front End for Postgresql
Hi As you might have figured out Postgresql is merely a server. (And some client code too). You have to find programs that do the input-forms, reports.... I tend to use Apache and PHP for these tasks. It works like ASP for Windows (but better in my opinion). PostgreSQL is not like eg Access for Windows. Access for windows has two parts. 1. The database engine 2. Application support/development/applications/dataview/query-windows... PostgreSQL is only 1. the Database engine. Though there is a command-line-based client "psql". And some administrative tools (also commandline) like initdb. As for Operating-system I'd recommend a good Linux-distribution. There are quite a few (and I really dont like anyone of them too much ;-) Personally use Slackware. Debian is said to be good too. Redhat is sort of an industry-standard beqause it is relatively easy to configure but I would personally not recommend it for a Server-OS. As for the choice of filesystem. ext2 (which most linux use) has somewhat poorer performance on character-writing than eg UFS (which FreeBSD use) but I think the programmers on PostgreSQL have solved this with good caching and block-writing-routines ;-) Best of luck Per-Olof Pettersson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 2001-05-16, 04:08:06, bscinc2000@yahoo.comNOSPAM (Al Frick) wrote regarding Which Front End for Postgresql: > Which software should I use for a front end for Postgresql? I know I > need an admistrator package for the databases, don't I? > What about which software to write the enduser routines? The input > screens, etc? > come to think of it, what software should I use for reporting on the > internal network? > And what should I use for publishing data on the Net? > Thanks for any help, > Al
On 16 May 2001 02:59:02 +0000, Per-Olof Pettersson wrote: > Redhat is sort of an industry-standard beqause it is relatively easy to > configure but I would personally not recommend it for a Server-OS. > > As for the choice of filesystem. > ext2 (which most linux use) has somewhat poorer performance on > character-writing than eg UFS (which FreeBSD use) but I think the > programmers on PostgreSQL have solved this with good caching and > block-writing-routines ;-) Funny thing is that SGI have rpms for RedHat XFS install... XFS is a server file system is it not? RedHat can be made into a server OS it just takes some work. Read the excellent http://www.linuxdoc.org/links/p_books.html#securing_linux I use it because it was the first CD in a 6 cd set I bought. I have tried others (I ran Suze for about 10 months on a server and I found that to be worse...). Debian and Slackware have a reputation of being too hard to install. I would personnaly choose FreeBSD for the PostgreSQL server and RedHat as the client workstation. Cheers Tony Grant -- RedHat Linux on Sony Vaio C1XD/S http://www.animaproductions.com/linux2.html Macromedia UltraDev with PostgreSQL http://www.animaproductions.com/ultra.html
There is a Tcl/Tk frontend to PostgreSQL that is almost like Access. http://www.flex.ro/pgqccess For linux the best file system I've found is Reiserfs it is a journaling file system and it is as stable as linux, you can even push the big red button while the disk works and you'll find your disk intact when you reboot. It is fast adn reliable and best of all you can't break your file system. http://www.reiserfs.com/ In article <20010516.2590235@mis.configured.host>, Per-Olof Pettersson wrote: > Hi > > PostgreSQL is not like eg Access for Windows. > Access for windows has two parts. > 1. The database engine > 2. Application support/development/applications/dataview/query-windows... > > PostgreSQL is only 1. the Database engine. > Though there is a command-line-based client "psql". > And some administrative tools (also commandline) like initdb. > > As for the choice of filesystem. > ext2 (which most linux use) has somewhat poorer performance on > character-writing than eg UFS (which FreeBSD use) but I think the > programmers on PostgreSQL have solved this with good caching and > block-writing-routines ;-) > > Best of luck > Per-Olof Pettersson -- Manuel Cano Muñoz ------------------------------ SANYRES, S.A. Director Dpto. Sistemas manuel@sanyres.com manuel@sanyres.es
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2760874,00.html?chkpt=zdnn0516 01 It would be great if we could see where postgres fits in this benchmark --dc--
Tony Grant wrote: > > Debian and Slackware have a reputation of being > too hard to install. > I find that Debian is not very hard to install. Actually, it seems to me that the application packages are generally done better, as far as default setup, etc., such that they run correctly "out of the box". So installation is actually easier if you consider application setup as a part of it. Besides, installation is a one-time thing. Debian is extremely easy to *maintain*, much more so than RedHat, in my experience. And that is more important in the long run, IMHO. Now, if we're talking clients, rather than a server, there'd be a better case for RH, though I'd probably not be persuaded. ;-) I hope I have not gotten too far off topic here, or started a useless flamewar...
In article <033f01c0de0d$ce93fcc0$230470d1@INSPIRON>, "Dave Cramer" <Dave@micro-automation.net> wrote: > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2760874,00.html?chkpt=zdnn0516 > 01 > > It would be great if we could see where postgres fits in this benchmark There are lies, damned lies, and benchmarks. That said (or shamelessly cribbed from Disraeli), I have found that for my current application (an auditing system for the transportation industry), PostgreSQL is 2-4 times faster than DB2 UDB 7.1 for most of our queries. To say that I was suprised is an understatement (no offense to the PostgreSQL crew). The database has a couple dozen tables, the largest is just over 1GB with 3.5 million rows. The database as a whole is over 6GB. This is running PostgreSQL 7.1 under RedHat 7.1 (it was true under RH 6.2, also). Hardware is an IBM Netfinity 7000 (4xPPro200/1M) with 1.5GB RAM and two RAID-5E arrays. My customer is running on a Dell PowerEdge 2400 (2xPIII 866) with 512MB RAM with a RAID-1 and a RAID-10 array. This one is amazingly fast! As always, your mileage may vary, contents may have settled during shipment, and objects in mirror are closer than they appear. Gordon. -- It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster. -- Greg LeMond
On Wed, 16 May 2001 08:01:42 +0000 (UTC), tony@animaproductions.com (Tony Grant) wrote: ... >I would personnaly choose FreeBSD for the PostgreSQL server and RedHat >as the client workstation. > >Cheers > >Tony Grant Thanks for all of the posts. I may try FreeBSD as the server. But I am a little confused. My clients want Windows on the work stations. Can this be done? Can the FreeBSD server with Postgresql then act as a database server for internal data and as a web host for publishing data to the Net? I realize there are security issues here. Would it be better to have an internal data server and have an external web host? Can Postgresql handle the same data on two different servers if I do this? Does it have replication or some other feature that makes off site web hosting possible? Thanks Al
Al Frick wrote: > I may try FreeBSD as the server. But I am a little confused. My > clients want Windows on the work stations. Can this be done? > The PostgreSQL ODBC driver for win32 works fine. With packages like MS-Access, Delphi, VB etc. you can write a client application and connect thru ODBC. There is also a JDBC driver available which makes it possible to connect to PostgreSQL from a Java written client. > Can the FreeBSD server with Postgresql then act as a database server > for internal data and as a web host for publishing data to the Net? I > realize there are security issues here. Would it be better to have an > internal data server and have an external web host? You can put the webserver on another machine then your databaseserver. You can connect to the PostgreSQL server via TCP/IP (don't forget to switch the -i parameter on for the postmaster). > Can Postgresql > handle the same data on two different servers if I do this? Does it > have replication or some other feature that makes off site web hosting > possible? > AFAIK replication and joining tables over multiple databases are not supported in PostgreSQL. But if you keep your database on one machine your clientprograms should be able to connect from diferent machines to the databaseserver. You can configure PostgreSQL only to accept connections from specified domains and/or IP addresses. HTH, Nils
In article <3b061853.20936084@news-server.tampabay.rr.com>, Al Frick wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2001 15:24:00 +0000 (UTC), keithmur@mindspring.com
> ("Keith G. Murphy") wrote:
>
>
>>Now, if we're talking clients, rather than a server, there'd be a better
>>case for RH, though I'd probably not be persuaded. ;-)
>>
> My users want to keep their Windows workstations. They like Office,
> god knows why. What can I use as the client software to develop
> database apps if I go with Linux, Debian, and PostgreSQL?
>
> Also can I create a file server with the above software to hold my
> word processing and other Office files?
>
> What do you recommend as a backup hardware and software for this
> environment?
>
> Thansks for the reply,
>
> Al Frick
Hi.
You can keep you win workstations. Just develop web apps or use
VB or anything you like that can use odbc. I found web apps
easy to develop, easy to mantain and with great user interfaces.
Aparently, when a user works with a web app he has in mind
Internet and the work is more like a Inet surfing, so he enjoy
a little more (yes, a little).
As for your file server, yes. You can use Samba. It works as a
Windows NT Server for domain logins, shared directories and so.
It behaves transparently to win workstations. Here we have a
Samba server with 25 win workstations and, from my experience,
it works even better than Windows NT.
Most linux distributions comes with Samba.
http://www.samba.org/
For backup we have a 24Gb tape and Bru, a commercial (but not
expensive) software that works great. If the tape you buy is
linux compatible you can use standard tools like tar, cpio
dump and others. We have nasty problems with backup restoring
with our tape (the tape that comes with an IBM Netfinity 7000)
when using tar, but Bru works simply perfect.
We use six tapes by month, five for each working day and one
for system (home made scripts and the like).
http://www.bru.com/
--
Manuel Cano Muñoz
------------------------------
SANYRES, S.A.
Director Dpto. Sistemas
manuel@sanyres.com
manuel@sanyres.es
On Wed, 16 May 2001 15:24:00 +0000 (UTC), keithmur@mindspring.com
("Keith G. Murphy") wrote:
>Now, if we're talking clients, rather than a server, there'd be a better
>case for RH, though I'd probably not be persuaded. ;-)
>
My users want to keep their Windows workstations. They like Office,
god knows why. What can I use as the client software to develop
database apps if I go with Linux, Debian, and PostgreSQL?
Also can I create a file server with the above software to hold my
word processing and other Office files?
What do you recommend as a backup hardware and software for this
environment?
Thansks for the reply,
Al Frick
In article <989996977.1109.0.camel@tonux>, "Tony Grant" <tony@animaproductions.com> wrote: > > Funny thing is that SGI have rpms for RedHat XFS install... XFS is a > server file system is it not? > I believe the XFS you are speaking of is the X Font Server. Not a file system. Redhat does use ext2, though I have heard good and bad about ext3. > RedHat can be made into a server OS it just takes some work. Read the > excellent http://www.linuxdoc.org/links/p_books.html#securing_linux > I can't say as I agree... I've setup several servers on RH, for different purposes of course, but none of them too more than, I'd say 2 hours for the partitionaing, OS install, and configure of base servers, everything. As far as securing it, I simply use a decent firewall (modified v. of rc.firewall) and portsentry. That's all. > > I would personnaly choose FreeBSD for the PostgreSQL server and RedHat > as the client workstation. > I so far have not had much luck with FreeBSD, it has fought with me all the way. Consequently, I don't have a BSD box running right now. The only complaint I really have with it, since every OS has it's little quirks, is that it does not seem to be quite up to date with hardware. Scream and yell... yeah I know it's way off topic.
In article <3B02682C.3F2407D@mbit.nl>, Nils Zonneveld wrote: > > > Al Frick wrote: > >> I may try FreeBSD as the server. But I am a little confused. My >> clients want Windows on the work stations. Can this be done? >> > > The PostgreSQL ODBC driver for win32 works fine. With packages like > MS-Access, Delphi, VB etc. you can write a client application and > connect thru ODBC. There is also a JDBC driver available which makes it > possible to connect to PostgreSQL from a Java written client. > >> Can the FreeBSD server with Postgresql then act as a database server >> for internal data and as a web host for publishing data to the Net? I >> realize there are security issues here. Would it be better to have an >> internal data server and have an external web host? > > You can put the webserver on another machine then your databaseserver. > You can connect to the PostgreSQL server via TCP/IP (don't forget to > switch the -i parameter on for the postmaster). > >> Can Postgresql >> handle the same data on two different servers if I do this? Does it >> have replication or some other feature that makes off site web hosting >> possible? >> > > AFAIK replication and joining tables over multiple databases are not > supported in PostgreSQL. But if you keep your database on one machine > your clientprograms should be able to connect from diferent machines to > the databaseserver. You can configure PostgreSQL only to accept > connections from specified domains and/or IP addresses. > > HTH, > > Nils Yeah! We use PostgreSQL on a Netfinity and our "clients" (our three work centers) are at miles (well, kilometers here (300km)) from headquarters. Clients use web pages (php) over a VPN via ADSL. There are two servers that access the databases directly via dedicated line, but a few states ahead from our office. The web pages are served from a different machine than db. They work simply perfect. I have simply forgotten the problems I used to have with other "systems". -- Manuel Cano Muñoz ------------------------------ SANYRES, S.A. Director Dpto. Sistemas manuel@sanyres.com manuel@sanyres.es
Damaen <damian@rochester.rr.com> wrote: > In article <989996977.1109.0.camel@tonux>, "Tony Grant" > <tony@animaproductions.com> wrote: >> Funny thing is that SGI have rpms for RedHat XFS install... XFS is a >> server file system is it not? > I believe the XFS you are speaking of is the X Font Server. Not a file > system. I doubt that. It looks like Tony is referring the XFS filesystem, http://linux-xfs.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ . HTH, Ray -- The Linux movement has been independent of anything Microsoft is doing. It's one of those cosmic movements in the industry, like the emergence of the Internet, or microprocessors. Irving Wladawsky-Berger, IBM VP in http://www.informationweek.com/793/ibm.htm
Hi, Does anybody know of any issues with Mac OS 9.x and either AppleWorks or Excel and ODBC access to a Postgres backend? I have a client who needs to print labels and who has AppleWorks. Cheers Tony Grant -- RedHat Linux on Sony Vaio C1XD/S http://www.animaproductions.com/linux2.html Macromedia UltraDev with PostgreSQL http://www.animaproductions.com/ultra.html
I have a problem with PostgresSQL 7.1 and Micro$oft Windoze ODBC and MS Access 2000 which I am hoping someone here might be able to help me with. When I try to link MS Access to a PostgresSQL 7.1 table, Access is unable to see any of the tables in the database so I cannot select a table to link. I have no problem with PostgresSQL 7.03 nor with MySQL. When I attempt to connect to the database using ZDE (a windows database client) I have no problem; probably because ZDE does not use the windows DSN. At lease, that is what I am assuming. I have attempted this with two separate 7.1 databases on two separate machines, one set up by me on a debian linux box the other set up by our network administrator so I don't _think_ it's a setup issue with PostgresSQL 7.1 Is there a URL for the latest driver for PostgresSQL 7.1 (I've downloaded a new driver but I'm not certain it's the most recent)? Is there some known issue with PostgresSQL 7.1 and windows ODBC (windows NT that is)?
Tony Grant wrote: > Hi, > > Does anybody know of any issues with Mac OS 9.x and either AppleWorks or > Excel and ODBC access to a Postgres backend? > > I have a client who needs to print labels and who has AppleWorks. Actually, I was going to investigate this for FileMaker - are their postgresql ODBC drivers for the mac? I couldn't find any. Michelle
On 21 May 2001 13:02:21 +0000, Michelle Murrain wrote: > Actually, I was going to investigate this for FileMaker - are their > postgresql ODBC drivers for the mac? I couldn't find any. M$ ones should work. There is one for 4D ($$$) Cheers Tony Grant -- RedHat Linux on Sony Vaio C1XD/S http://www.animaproductions.com/linux2.html Macromedia UltraDev with PostgreSQL http://www.animaproductions.com/ultra.html
Monday... I can't get my brain around this one. Get the top three replies from a quizz. I want to select from a table all records which have a value of 1.000000, 2.000000 and 3.000000. Then I want to class the records by the column which has the most 1 followed by the most 2... Yes I was thrown out of math class in high school... All these dark secrets which are coming out now... I don't want code I want the logic so that I can try to write the code for myself. TIA Cheers Tony Grant -- RedHat Linux on Sony Vaio C1XD/S http://www.animaproductions.com/linux2.html Macromedia UltraDev with PostgreSQL http://www.animaproductions.com/ultra.html
Hey Scott, I remember I had to upgrade the PostgreSQL ODBC driver from 7.0 to 7.1 series. Then everything worked fine. Greetings, Lieven Scott Gilbert wrote: > I have a problem with PostgresSQL 7.1 and Micro$oft Windoze ODBC and MS > Access 2000 which I am hoping someone here might be able to help me with. > > When I try to link MS Access to a PostgresSQL 7.1 table, Access is unable to > see any of the tables in the database so I cannot select a table to link. > > I have no problem with PostgresSQL 7.03 nor with MySQL. When I attempt to > connect to the database using ZDE (a windows database client) I have no > problem; probably because ZDE does not use the windows DSN. At lease, that > is what I am assuming. > > I have attempted this with two separate 7.1 databases on two separate > machines, one set up by me on a debian linux box the other set up by our > network administrator so I don't _think_ it's a setup issue with PostgresSQL > 7.1 > > Is there a URL for the latest driver for PostgresSQL 7.1 (I've downloaded a > new driver but I'm not certain it's the most recent)? > > Is there some known issue with PostgresSQL 7.1 and windows ODBC (windows NT > that is)? > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
I am having a related problem with the 7.1 ODBC driver. Records which I write using JDBC are fine which I use pgaccess to view them. However, if I use ODBC and Access and do a link table, the data appears a jiberish. "Lieven Van Acker" <lieven@elisa.be> wrote in message news:3B095301.81CA0F2A@elisa.be... > Hey Scott, > > I remember I had to upgrade the PostgreSQL ODBC driver from 7.0 to 7.1 series. Then everything worked fine. > > Greetings, > > Lieven > > Scott Gilbert wrote: > > > I have a problem with PostgresSQL 7.1 and Micro$oft Windoze ODBC and MS > > Access 2000 which I am hoping someone here might be able to help me with. > > > > When I try to link MS Access to a PostgresSQL 7.1 table, Access is unable to > > see any of the tables in the database so I cannot select a table to link. > > > > I have no problem with PostgresSQL 7.03 nor with MySQL. When I attempt to > > connect to the database using ZDE (a windows database client) I have no > > problem; probably because ZDE does not use the windows DSN. At lease, that > > is what I am assuming. > > > > I have attempted this with two separate 7.1 databases on two separate > > machines, one set up by me on a debian linux box the other set up by our > > network administrator so I don't _think_ it's a setup issue with PostgresSQL > > 7.1 > > > > Is there a URL for the latest driver for PostgresSQL 7.1 (I've downloaded a > > new driver but I'm not certain it's the most recent)? > > > > Is there some known issue with PostgresSQL 7.1 and windows ODBC (windows NT > > that is)? > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org