Thread: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Global Development Group
Devrim G?ND?Z wrote: > I do NOT like hearing about MySQL in this (these) list(s). > > PostgreSQL is not in the same category with MySQL. MySQL is for > *dummies*, not database admins. I do not even call it a database. I > have never forgotten my data loss 2,5 years ago; when I used MySQL for > just 2 months!!! I think you're on to something here, but it's obscured by the way you said it. There's no question in my mind that PostgreSQL is superior in almost every way to MySQL. For those of us who are technically minded, it boggles the mind that people would choose MySQL over PostgreSQL. Yet they do. And it's important to understand why. Simply saying "MySQL has better marketing" isn't enough. It's too simple an answer and obscures some issues that should probably be addressed. People use MySQL because it's very easy to set up, relatively easy to maintain (when something doesn't go wrong, that is), is very well documented and supported, and is initially adequate for the task they have in mind (that the task may change significantly such that MySQL is no longer adequate is something only those with experience will consider). PostgreSQL has come a long way and, with the exception of a few minor things (the need to VACUUM, for instance. The current version makes the VACUUM requirement almost a non-issue as regards performance and availability, but it really should be something that the database takes care of itself), is equivalent to MySQL in the above things except for documentation and support. MySQL's documentation is very, very good. My experience with it is that it's possible, and relatively easy, to find information about almost anything you might need to know. PostgreSQL's documentation is good, but not quite as good as MySQL's. It's not quite as complete. For instance, I didn't find any documentation at all in the User's Guide or Administrator's Guide on creating tables (if I missed it, then that might illustrate that the documentation needs to be organized slightly differently). I did find a little in the tutorial (about the amount that you'd want in a tutorial), but to find out more I had to go to the SQL statement reference (in my case I was looking for the means by which one could create a constraint on a column during table creation time). The reason this is important is that the documentation is *the* way people are going to learn the database. If it's too sparse or too disorganized, people who don't have a lot of time to spend searching through the documentation for something may well decide that a different product (such as MySQL) would suit their needs better. The documentation for PostgreSQL improves all the time, largely in response to comments such as this one, and that's a very good thing. My purpose in bringing this up is to show you what PostgreSQL is up against in terms of widespread adoption. > If we want to "sell" PostgreSQL, we should talk about, maybe, Oracle. > I have never took care of MySQL said. I just know that I'm running > PostgreSQL since 2,5 years and I only stopped it "JUST" before upgrades > of PostgreSQL. It's just *working*; which is unfamiliar to MySQL > users. The experience people have with MySQL varies a lot, and much of it has to do with the load people put on it. If MySQL were consistently bad and unreliable it would have a much smaller following (since it's not in a monopoly position the way Microsoft is). But you're mistaken if you believe that MySQL isn't competition for PostgreSQL. It is, because it serves the same purpose: a means of storing information in an easily retrievable way. Selling potential MySQL users on PostgreSQL should be easier than doing the same for Oracle users because potential MySQL users have at least already decided that a free database is worthy of consideration. As their needs grow beyond what MySQL offers, they'll look for a more capable database engine. It's a target market that we'd be idiots to ignore, and we do so at our peril (the more people out there using MySQL, the fewer there are using PostgreSQL). > I'm a Linux user. I'm happy that PostgreSQL does not have win32 version. > If someone wants to use a real database server, then they should install > Linux (or *bsd,etc). This is what Oracle offers,too. Native Windows > support will cause some problems; such as some dummy windows users will > begin using it. I do not believe that PostgreSQL needs native windowz > support. I hate to break it to you (assuming that I didn't misunderstand what you said), but Oracle offers a native Windows port of their database engine, and has done so for some time. It's *stupid* to ignore the native Windows market. There are a lot of people who need a database engine to store their data and who would benefit from a native Windows implementation of PostgreSQL, but aren't interested in the additional burden of setting up a Linux server because they lack the money, time, or expertise. > So, hackers (I'm not a hacker) should decide whether PostgreSQL should > be used widely in real database apps, or it should be used even by dummy > users? What makes you think we can't meet the needs of both groups? The capabilities of PostgreSQL are (with very few exceptions) a superset of MySQL's, which means that wherever someone deploys a MySQL server, they could probably have deployed a PostgreSQL server in its place. It should be an easy sell: they get a database engine that is significantly more capable than MySQL for the same low price! Selling to the Oracle market is going to be harder. The capabilities of Oracle are a superset of those of PostgreSQL. Shops which plan to deploy a database server and who need the capabilities of PostgreSQL at a minimum are going to look at Oracle for the same reason that shops which at a minimum need the capabilities of MySQL would be smart to look at PostgreSQL: their needs may grow over time and changing the database mid-project is difficult and time-consuming. The difference is that the prices of MySQL and PostgreSQL are the same, while the prices of PostgreSQL and Oracle are vastly different. That's not to say that going after the Oracle market shouldn't be done (quite the opposite, provided it's done honestly), only that *not* going after the MySQL market is folly. -- Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
Something I have done at little cost was to submit a request for a few books on PostgreSQL to my local library and I check them out once in while and see that others are also checking them out..... I agree with poor level of documentation....the skeleton is there....perhpas we could have some volunteers write up some parts (or add more....)... Kevin Brown wrote: >Devrim G?ND?Z wrote: > > >>I do NOT like hearing about MySQL in this (these) list(s). >> >>PostgreSQL is not in the same category with MySQL. MySQL is for >>*dummies*, not database admins. I do not even call it a database. I >>have never forgotten my data loss 2,5 years ago; when I used MySQL for >>just 2 months!!! >> >> > >I think you're on to something here, but it's obscured by the way you >said it. > >There's no question in my mind that PostgreSQL is superior in almost >every way to MySQL. For those of us who are technically minded, it >boggles the mind that people would choose MySQL over PostgreSQL. Yet >they do. And it's important to understand why. > >Simply saying "MySQL has better marketing" isn't enough. It's too >simple an answer and obscures some issues that should probably be >addressed. > >People use MySQL because it's very easy to set up, relatively easy to >maintain (when something doesn't go wrong, that is), is very well >documented and supported, and is initially adequate for the task they >have in mind (that the task may change significantly such that MySQL >is no longer adequate is something only those with experience will >consider). > >PostgreSQL has come a long way and, with the exception of a few minor >things (the need to VACUUM, for instance. The current version makes >the VACUUM requirement almost a non-issue as regards performance and >availability, but it really should be something that the database >takes care of itself), is equivalent to MySQL in the above things >except for documentation and support. > >MySQL's documentation is very, very good. My experience with it is >that it's possible, and relatively easy, to find information about >almost anything you might need to know. > >PostgreSQL's documentation is good, but not quite as good as MySQL's. >It's not quite as complete. For instance, I didn't find any >documentation at all in the User's Guide or Administrator's Guide on >creating tables (if I missed it, then that might illustrate that the >documentation needs to be organized slightly differently). I did find >a little in the tutorial (about the amount that you'd want in a >tutorial), but to find out more I had to go to the SQL statement >reference (in my case I was looking for the means by which one could >create a constraint on a column during table creation time). > >The reason this is important is that the documentation is *the* way >people are going to learn the database. If it's too sparse or too >disorganized, people who don't have a lot of time to spend searching >through the documentation for something may well decide that a >different product (such as MySQL) would suit their needs better. > >The documentation for PostgreSQL improves all the time, largely in >response to comments such as this one, and that's a very good thing. >My purpose in bringing this up is to show you what PostgreSQL is up >against in terms of widespread adoption. > > > >>If we want to "sell" PostgreSQL, we should talk about, maybe, Oracle. >>I have never took care of MySQL said. I just know that I'm running >>PostgreSQL since 2,5 years and I only stopped it "JUST" before upgrades >>of PostgreSQL. It's just *working*; which is unfamiliar to MySQL >>users. >> >> > >The experience people have with MySQL varies a lot, and much of it has >to do with the load people put on it. If MySQL were consistently bad >and unreliable it would have a much smaller following (since it's not >in a monopoly position the way Microsoft is). > >But you're mistaken if you believe that MySQL isn't competition for >PostgreSQL. It is, because it serves the same purpose: a means of >storing information in an easily retrievable way. > >Selling potential MySQL users on PostgreSQL should be easier than >doing the same for Oracle users because potential MySQL users have at >least already decided that a free database is worthy of consideration. >As their needs grow beyond what MySQL offers, they'll look for a more >capable database engine. It's a target market that we'd be idiots to >ignore, and we do so at our peril (the more people out there using >MySQL, the fewer there are using PostgreSQL). > > > >>I'm a Linux user. I'm happy that PostgreSQL does not have win32 version. >>If someone wants to use a real database server, then they should install >>Linux (or *bsd,etc). This is what Oracle offers,too. Native Windows >>support will cause some problems; such as some dummy windows users will >>begin using it. I do not believe that PostgreSQL needs native windowz >>support. >> >> > >I hate to break it to you (assuming that I didn't misunderstand what >you said), but Oracle offers a native Windows port of their database >engine, and has done so for some time. It's *stupid* to ignore the >native Windows market. There are a lot of people who need a database >engine to store their data and who would benefit from a native Windows >implementation of PostgreSQL, but aren't interested in the additional >burden of setting up a Linux server because they lack the money, time, >or expertise. > > > >>So, hackers (I'm not a hacker) should decide whether PostgreSQL should >>be used widely in real database apps, or it should be used even by dummy >>users? >> >> > >What makes you think we can't meet the needs of both groups? The >capabilities of PostgreSQL are (with very few exceptions) a superset >of MySQL's, which means that wherever someone deploys a MySQL server, >they could probably have deployed a PostgreSQL server in its place. >It should be an easy sell: they get a database engine that is >significantly more capable than MySQL for the same low price! > >Selling to the Oracle market is going to be harder. The capabilities >of Oracle are a superset of those of PostgreSQL. Shops which plan to >deploy a database server and who need the capabilities of PostgreSQL >at a minimum are going to look at Oracle for the same reason that >shops which at a minimum need the capabilities of MySQL would be smart >to look at PostgreSQL: their needs may grow over time and changing the >database mid-project is difficult and time-consuming. The difference >is that the prices of MySQL and PostgreSQL are the same, while the >prices of PostgreSQL and Oracle are vastly different. > >That's not to say that going after the Oracle market shouldn't be done >(quite the opposite, provided it's done honestly), only that *not* >going after the MySQL market is folly. > > > >