Thread: Why PostgreSQL?
Ok, I actually know the answer to the question in the subject line, so I don't need anyone to point it out to me. Instead I would like to see answers from a different angle. Since the .ORG Registry was moved to a PostgreSQL database, I know it makes a strong argument for OSS in the commercial/government world. I know that PostgreSQL is a solid RDBMS and that it can get the job done. What I want to know is how can one persuade IT managers and decision makers to go with PostgreSQL, when most probably haven't even heard of it? Most buy either Oracle, Sybase, or MS SQL Server because that's all they know or merely for the fact that money is not an issue. Companies may also choose to go with the bigger name RDBMS because there is also a readily available supply of DBAs that can support these systems. If a DBA was to leave a company, then downtime would be minimal. I received the New Riders PostgreSQL book today, but I'm now contemplating whether or not I should master PostgreSQL. I decided to do a search on Monster for PostgreSQL, and only 7 results came up for the US, with some requiring experience in PostgreSQL OR MySQL. This has its advantages and disadvantages. Advantage, job security, if I'm the only one who know PostgreSQL, then it would be tough to get the boot. Disadvantage, the demand isn't high, there aren't many job openings for PostgreSQL DBAs. My second question is, "Why should I dedicate the time to gain expertise in PostgreSQL?" My main reasons are 1) If I wanted leave my company, there wouldn't really be a full-time PostgreSQL position open, 2) If I could persuade my company to base their whole information architecture on PostgreSQL, and then I left, it could very easily leave a bad taste in their mouth after spending months trying to find a replacement. I apologized for the lenght, but I hope my questions are clear. Thanks, Derrick Rapley
Derrick Rapley wrote:
> What I want to know is how can one persuade IT managers and decision
> makers to go with PostgreSQL, when most probably haven't even heard
> of it? Most buy either Oracle, Sybase, or MS SQL Server because
> that's all they know
Price - Licencing on proprietary databases is something fantasic. It
is laughably easy to run up a 6-figure licencing price tag setting up a
decent database installation based on proprietary databases. Those
6-figures can be better spent on other aspects of an installation.
Transparency - PgSQL is not a black box. In the very worst case, you
can track down and kill bugs yourself. Mostly though, the transparency
allows you to figure out the advanced capabilities of PgSQL through
examination of the workings.
Flexibility - A subset of transparency, the open APIs and the fact
that the boths sides of API bindings are visible in source code allows
easy and interesting extensions to the database. The PL/R statistical
extension to PgSQL is one of the most interesting things I've seen in
the database world in a while. PL/R only exists because of the
transparency and flexibility of the PgSQL framework.
However, if you *really* want PgSQL to start looking attractive to
managers and PHBs, you'll have to get a big company like IBM or HP or
Sun to start promoting it, as IBM has done Linux. Management-level
technology decisions are made on the basis of *references*. If
management can reference a trusted source who promotes the product, they
can feel safe about choosing it. That trusted source might be another
manager in the organization, or it might be a big multinational IT
company giving a stamp of approval.
> My second question is, "Why should I dedicate the time to gain
> expertise in PostgreSQL?"
Because it can't hurt, and because unlike Oracle it doesn't take that
long to learn. By all means, learn Oracle too, this isn't an either/or
proposition :)
P.
--
__
/
| Paul Ramsey
| Refractions Research
| Email: pramsey@refractions.net
| Phone: (250) 885-0632
\_
Good questions. Here are a few thoughts. The first part to persuading IT managers is to throw the standard set of pro-open source arguments at them: lower license costs; lower costs of managing your license count, don't have to worry about adding users or adding servers; generally more secure; commitment to quality code without market pressure to ship a version before it's ready; etc. Once you get that far, it's really down to Postgresql or Mysql, and you can talk performance, features, etc. Not that those can't be brought up with SQL Server and Oracle. The concerns about the supply of DBA's is reasonable. From the company's perspective, I think they could bring in any competent Oracle or DB2 administrator and have them trained in Postgresql in a reasonably short time, especially if the system was in good shape when you left with automated maintenance and backups already happening. Postgresql isn't that complicated relative to other full-featured databases. Wes Sheldahl "Derrick Rapley" <adrapley@rapleyzone.com>@postgresql.org on 02/27/2003 04:12:48 PM Please respond to <adrapley@rapleyzone.com> Sent by: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> cc: Subject: [GENERAL] Why PostgreSQL? Ok, I actually know the answer to the question in the subject line, so I don't need anyone to point it out to me. Instead I would like to see answers from a different angle. Since the .ORG Registry was moved to a PostgreSQL database, I know it makes a strong argument for OSS in the commercial/government world. I know that PostgreSQL is a solid RDBMS and that it can get the job done. What I want to know is how can one persuade IT managers and decision makers to go with PostgreSQL, when most probably haven't even heard of it? Most buy either Oracle, Sybase, or MS SQL Server because that's all they know or merely for the fact that money is not an issue. Companies may also choose to go with the bigger name RDBMS because there is also a readily available supply of DBAs that can support these systems. If a DBA was to leave a company, then downtime would be minimal. I received the New Riders PostgreSQL book today, but I'm now contemplating whether or not I should master PostgreSQL. I decided to do a search on Monster for PostgreSQL, and only 7 results came up for the US, with some requiring experience in PostgreSQL OR MySQL. This has its advantages and disadvantages. Advantage, job security, if I'm the only one who know PostgreSQL, then it would be tough to get the boot. Disadvantage, the demand isn't high, there aren't many job openings for PostgreSQL DBAs. My second question is, "Why should I dedicate the time to gain expertise in PostgreSQL?" My main reasons are 1) If I wanted leave my company, there wouldn't really be a full-time PostgreSQL position open, 2) If I could persuade my company to base their whole information architecture on PostgreSQL, and then I left, it could very easily leave a bad taste in their mouth after spending months trying to find a replacement. I apologized for the lenght, but I hope my questions are clear. Thanks, Derrick Rapley ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
> What I want to know is how can one persuade IT managers and decision makers
> to go with PostgreSQL, when most probably haven't even heard of it? Most
> buy either Oracle, Sybase, or MS SQL Server because that's all they know or
> merely for the fact that money is not an issue. Companies may also choose
> to go with the bigger name RDBMS because there is also a readily available
> supply of DBAs that can support these systems. If a DBA was to leave a
> company, then downtime would be minimal.
I think a lot of the PostgreSQL installations in use were installed by people
already convinced of it's ability. I think, in general, it's hard to make
people comfortable with a decision like that when they don't take the time to
understand the situation more fully. I think the managers' responses are
mostly based on an unwillingness to investigate for themselves, which cause
the discomfort.
That said, I think compelling case studies are probably the best way to go.
Affilias manages the .info and .org registries with postgres, and I'm sure
you can find others. Keep in mind that many companies aren't necessarily
against the idea of open source software (consider Apache, Linux, *BSD, and
others), but rather see some *very* compelling case studies from the likes of
Oracle/DB2.
The other way might be to install it on a development server of some kind, and
show that it's able to handle the application better than what they've
already got. In many cases, I'm sure you'll find postgres a little speedier
or more flexible than other DBMSs for your specific applications, and that
should be easy enough to prove. And after all, if you can't prove that, maybe
postgres isn't the best (although it may certainly still have some powerful
advantages).
Regards,
Jeff Davis
Paul Ramsey wrote: > > > However, if you *really* want PgSQL to start looking attractive to > managers and PHBs, you'll have to get a big company like IBM or HP or > Sun to start promoting it, as IBM has done Linux. Management-level > technology decisions are made on the basis of *references*. If > management can reference a trusted source who promotes the product, > they can feel safe about choosing it. That trusted source might be > another manager in the organization, or it might be a big > multinational IT company giving a stamp of approval. Would the fact that RedHat has chosen PG on their distribution count ? > > >> My second question is, "Why should I dedicate the time to gain >> expertise in PostgreSQL?" > > > Because it can't hurt, and because unlike Oracle it doesn't take that > long to learn. By all means, learn Oracle too, this isn't an either/or > proposition :) > > P. >
Derrick Rapley wrote: > >What I want to know is how can one persuade IT managers and decision makers >to go with PostgreSQL, when most probably haven't even heard of it? > Well, if they're into sick, cruel dark humor, you could tell them "see what happens to incompetent people like NASA for using MySQL?" I know, I know, bad and tasteless joke... Kidding aside, you could sell them the idea of the general benefits of open source software. By far the two most popular opensource databases are PG and MySQL, and for anything more than toy applications (such as things for which one would consider Access), Postgres wins hands down -- well, this world is a sad place, actually; I feel depressed to live in a world where Postgres wins a poll by just one vote against the worst crap that ever existed (MySQL) -- besides Microsoft software, of course. Anyway, a technical comparison between PG and MySQL should convince even the most ignorant of the managers; Referential integrity (GOD, what makes me really mad is that MySQL not only doesn't support referential integrity; they sell it as a feature, as if it was a good thing!! GOD!! Have those people EVER taken a databases course??!!); sub-queries is also an extremely important feature that MySQL lacks (last time I checked, at least) So, if they buy the idea of open source, then it shouldn't be too hard to convince them to choose PG -- despite MySQL being one of the hot keywords when talking about open source ... again, this world is such a depressing place :-( Carlos --
I just say it was started as a University project (nothing wrong with that), and eventually became viable (nothing wrong with that either). Then companies found it was viable and now participate in it's development (nothing wrong with that too!) My Boss, a rather traditional fellow and totally without grasp on Open Source Sid "If it's free it can't be worth anything, or there has to be a catch." It was the then history that brought him around. -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Carlos Moreno Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:22 PM To: adrapley@rapleyzone.com Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Why PostgreSQL? Derrick Rapley wrote: > >What I want to know is how can one persuade IT managers and decision makers >to go with PostgreSQL, when most probably haven't even heard of it? > Well, if they're into sick, cruel dark humor, you could tell them "see what happens to incompetent people like NASA for using MySQL?" I know, I know, bad and tasteless joke... Kidding aside, you could sell them the idea of the general benefits of open source software. By far the two most popular opensource databases are PG and MySQL, and for anything more than toy applications (such as things for which one would consider Access), Postgres wins hands down -- well, this world is a sad place, actually; I feel depressed to live in a world where Postgres wins a poll by just one vote against the worst crap that ever existed (MySQL) -- besides Microsoft software, of course. Anyway, a technical comparison between PG and MySQL should convince even the most ignorant of the managers; Referential integrity (GOD, what makes me really mad is that MySQL not only doesn't support referential integrity; they sell it as a feature, as if it was a good thing!! GOD!! Have those people EVER taken a databases course??!!); sub-queries is also an extremely important feature that MySQL lacks (last time I checked, at least) So, if they buy the idea of open source, then it shouldn't be too hard to convince them to choose PG -- despite MySQL being one of the hot keywords when talking about open source ... again, this world is such a depressing place :-( Carlos -- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
Here is the presentation I use for managers:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/past_present_future.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hihn wrote:
> I just say it was started as a University project (nothing wrong with that),
> and eventually became viable (nothing wrong with that either). Then
> companies found it was viable and now participate in it's development
> (nothing wrong with that too!)
>
> My Boss, a rather traditional fellow and totally without grasp on Open
> Source Sid "If it's free it can't be worth anything, or there has to be a
> catch."
>
> It was the then history that brought him around.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Carlos Moreno
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:22 PM
> To: adrapley@rapleyzone.com
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Why PostgreSQL?
>
>
> Derrick Rapley wrote:
>
> >
> >What I want to know is how can one persuade IT managers and decision makers
> >to go with PostgreSQL, when most probably haven't even heard of it?
> >
>
> Well, if they're into sick, cruel dark humor, you could tell them
> "see what happens to incompetent people like NASA for using
> MySQL?"
>
> I know, I know, bad and tasteless joke...
>
> Kidding aside, you could sell them the idea of the general
> benefits of open source software. By far the two most
> popular opensource databases are PG and MySQL, and for
> anything more than toy applications (such as things for
> which one would consider Access), Postgres wins hands down --
> well, this world is a sad place, actually; I feel depressed
> to live in a world where Postgres wins a poll by just one
> vote against the worst crap that ever existed (MySQL) --
> besides Microsoft software, of course.
>
> Anyway, a technical comparison between PG and MySQL
> should convince even the most ignorant of the managers;
> Referential integrity (GOD, what makes me really mad is
> that MySQL not only doesn't support referential integrity;
> they sell it as a feature, as if it was a good thing!!
> GOD!! Have those people EVER taken a databases course??!!);
> sub-queries is also an extremely important feature that
> MySQL lacks (last time I checked, at least)
>
> So, if they buy the idea of open source, then it shouldn't
> be too hard to convince them to choose PG -- despite MySQL
> being one of the hot keywords when talking about open
> source ... again, this world is such a depressing place
> :-(
>
> Carlos
> --
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>
--
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