Thread: add column sillyness
Why do I have to use FOUR queries to accomplish the same result I can get from MySQL with only ONE query: alter table users add column $ColumnName text; alter table users alter column $ColumnName set default ''; update users set t_shirt_size='' where $ColumnName is null; alter table users alter column $ColumnName set not null; MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of - usability - see above - performance - uses index for for min()/max() - reliability - no need to use vacuum - no need to dump and restore databases for version upgrade - never screwed up any of my databases I would therefore urgently recommend that 1) development of postgresql shall be immediately ceased 2) any resources gained thereby (developers, mirrors) shall be donated to MySQL 3) code produced by the former postgresql developers shall be subject to a mandatory peer review before it is included in MySQL Regards Tom
On Friday 05 December 2003 21:26, Thomas Zehetbauer wrote: > Why do I have to use FOUR queries to accomplish the same result I can > get from MySQL with only ONE query: > > alter table users add column $ColumnName text; > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set default ''; > update users set t_shirt_size='' where $ColumnName is null; > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set not null; > > MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of > - usability > - see above > - performance > - uses index for for min()/max() > - reliability > - no need to use vacuum > - no need to dump and restore databases for version upgrade > - never screwed up any of my databases > > I would therefore urgently recommend that > 1) development of postgresql shall be immediately ceased > 2) any resources gained thereby (developers, mirrors) shall be donated > to MySQL > 3) code produced by the former postgresql developers shall be subject to > a mandatory peer review before it is included in MySQL Thanks, I haven't had such a good laugh for days ;-). You might want to get a new CMOS battery for your motherboard clock though, April 1st isn't for another 3 1/2 months. Ian Barwick barwick@gmx.net
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Ian Barwick wrote: > On Friday 05 December 2003 21:26, Thomas Zehetbauer wrote: > > Why do I have to use FOUR queries to accomplish the same result I can > > get from MySQL with only ONE query: > > > > alter table users add column $ColumnName text; > > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set default ''; > > update users set t_shirt_size='' where $ColumnName is null; > > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set not null; > > > > MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of > > - usability > > - see above > > - performance > > - uses index for for min()/max() > > - reliability > > - no need to use vacuum > > - no need to dump and restore databases for version upgrade > > - never screwed up any of my databases > > > > I would therefore urgently recommend that > > 1) development of postgresql shall be immediately ceased > > 2) any resources gained thereby (developers, mirrors) shall be donated > > to MySQL > > 3) code produced by the former postgresql developers shall be subject to > > a mandatory peer review before it is included in MySQL > > Thanks, I haven't had such a good laugh for days ;-). You might > want to get a new CMOS battery for your motherboard clock though, > April 1st isn't for another 3 1/2 months. That's why I let that one slip through the proverbial cracks ... figured a few ppl would have a good chuckle :) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Thomas Zehetbauer wrote: > Why do I have to use FOUR queries to accomplish the same result I can > get from MySQL with only ONE query: > > alter table users add column $ColumnName text; > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set default ''; > update users set t_shirt_size='' where $ColumnName is null; > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set not null; > > MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of > - usability > - see above > - performance > - uses index for for min()/max() > - reliability > - no need to use vacuum > - no need to dump and restore databases for version upgrade > - never screwed up any of my databases > > I would therefore urgently recommend that > 1) development of postgresql shall be immediately ceased > 2) any resources gained thereby (developers, mirrors) shall be donated > to MySQL > 3) code produced by the former postgresql developers shall be subject to > a mandatory peer review before it is included in MySQL Thomas, you know about this problem for quite some time now: http://www.faqchest.com/prgm/pgsql-l/pgsql-02/pgsql-0203/pgsql-020330/pgsql02031308_14224.html I assume that you have some experience in database development and since you know about this for so long, have some idea for us. Can you please explain in some detail how to do this given the catalog based extensible functionality of PostgreSQL. How does MySQL achieve to use an index on a user defined data type where a user defined max() aggregate was created for? I know that MySQL is far superior. Unfortunately though some of my applications use stored procedures, referential actions, updateable views, triggers, subselects and other features that are not yet supported by this excellent product. Please let me know when some of these will be available and until then, just shut up! Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
> > MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of > - usability > - see above > - performance > - uses index for for min()/max() > - reliability > - no need to use vacuum > - no need to dump and restore databases for version upgrade > - never screwed up any of my databases > You forgot space saving storage of floating point numbers: mysql> create table test(foo int); Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.51 sec) mysql> insert into test (foo) values (1.5); Query OK, 1 row affected (0.42 sec) mysql> select * from test; +------+ | foo | +------+ | 2 | +------+ 1 row in set (0.01 sec) eric
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 02:29:31PM -0800, Eric Soroos wrote: > >MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of > mysql> insert into test (foo) values (1.5); > Query OK, 1 row affected (0.42 sec) > > mysql> select * from test; > +------+ > | foo | > +------+ > | 2 | > +------+ Cool. Where do I download this software? This is just what I was looking for. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>) "Es fil�sofo el que disfruta con los enigmas" (G. Coli)
Eric Soroos wrote: >> >> MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of >> - usability >> - see above >> - performance >> - uses index for for min()/max() >> - reliability >> - no need to use vacuum >> - no need to dump and restore databases for version upgrade >> - never screwed up any of my databases >> > > You forgot space saving storage of floating point numbers: He also forgot that it returns far less error messages since it just assumes "something" whenever the input is unintelligible or if the requested feature is not what the programmer should want, speed wise. Oh, and it is much much faster too. For example numeric data does not use those horrible expensive string math routines for exact precision, it has full hardware floating point support instead, so it will actually use your math co-proc (if you have one). These accounting bureaucrats really shouldn't worry, at that speed one can create many more results and one will probably be right someday. Jan > > mysql> create table test(foo int); > Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.51 sec) > > mysql> insert into test (foo) values (1.5); > Query OK, 1 row affected (0.42 sec) > > mysql> select * from test; > +------+ > | foo | > +------+ > | 2 | > +------+ > 1 row in set (0.01 sec) > > eric > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
"I'm tired of MySQL being beaten up by the PostgreSQL guys. I am going to fight back! Where is my sword?" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Zehetbauer wrote: > Why do I have to use FOUR queries to accomplish the same result I can > get from MySQL with only ONE query: > > alter table users add column $ColumnName text; > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set default ''; > update users set t_shirt_size='' where $ColumnName is null; > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set not null; > > MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of > - usability > - see above > - performance > - uses index for for min()/max() > - reliability > - no need to use vacuum > - no need to dump and restore databases for version upgrade > - never screwed up any of my databases > > I would therefore urgently recommend that > 1) development of postgresql shall be immediately ceased > 2) any resources gained thereby (developers, mirrors) shall be donated > to MySQL > 3) code produced by the former postgresql developers shall be subject to > a mandatory peer review before it is included in MySQL > > Regards > Tom > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- 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
Bruce Momjian wrote: > "I'm tired of MySQL being beaten up by the PostgreSQL guys. I am going > to fight back! Where is my sword?" Carefull Bruce. The MySQL sword is razor sharp only on one side and is missing the handle! But if you succeed to pull it out without cutting off your fingers, it'll cut everything else to fit without warning ... if you want that cut or not. Jan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thomas Zehetbauer wrote: >> Why do I have to use FOUR queries to accomplish the same result I can >> get from MySQL with only ONE query: >> >> alter table users add column $ColumnName text; >> alter table users alter column $ColumnName set default ''; >> update users set t_shirt_size='' where $ColumnName is null; >> alter table users alter column $ColumnName set not null; >> >> MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of >> - usability >> - see above >> - performance >> - uses index for for min()/max() >> - reliability >> - no need to use vacuum >> - no need to dump and restore databases for version upgrade >> - never screwed up any of my databases >> >> I would therefore urgently recommend that >> 1) development of postgresql shall be immediately ceased >> 2) any resources gained thereby (developers, mirrors) shall be donated >> to MySQL >> 3) code produced by the former postgresql developers shall be subject to >> a mandatory peer review before it is included in MySQL >> >> Regards >> Tom >> >> >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate >> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your >> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >> > -- #======================================================================# # 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: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > "I'm tired of MySQL being beaten up by the PostgreSQL guys. I am going > > to fight back! Where is my sword?" > > Carefull Bruce. The MySQL sword is razor sharp only on one side and is > missing the handle! But if you succeed to pull it out without cutting > off your fingers, it'll cut everything else to fit without warning ... > if you want that cut or not. LOL. I thought someone would find this funny. -- 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
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >"I'm tired of MySQL being beaten up by the PostgreSQL guys. I am going
> >to fight back! Where is my sword?"
>
> Carefull Bruce. The MySQL sword is razor sharp only on one side and is
> missing the handle! But if you succeed to pull it out without cutting
> off your fingers, it'll cut everything else to fit without warning ...
> if you want that cut or not.
"To defeat a superior swordsman, you have to use your sword --
not as a sword -- but rather as something else, like a chain
of a rope."
"This sword technique would be the same for a yari, bo, or
naginata. They are all the same."
Hatsumi Sensei, Hisamune
Bujinkan Budo Ninpo Taijutsu
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
Thomas Zehetbauer wrote: > Why do I have to use FOUR queries to accomplish the same result I can > get from MySQL with only ONE query: > > alter table users add column $ColumnName text; > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set default ''; > update users set t_shirt_size='' where $ColumnName is null; > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set not null; Wow, that's true! On MySQL 4.0.16-nt is also possible write: alter table T1 add CONSTRAINT FK_test foreign key (id) REFERENCES T2 (id); that doesn't complain. Unfortunately repeating the command N times doesn't complain neither. And the funny here is that FK are not yet supported ! No regards. Gaetano Mendola
----- Original Message ----- From: thomasz@hostmaster.org <Thomas Zehetbauer> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Date: 05.12.2003 21:26:51 Subject: [GENERAL] add column sillyness > Why do I have to use FOUR queries to accomplish the same result I can > get from MySQL with only ONE query: > > alter table users add column $ColumnName text; > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set default \'\'; > update users set t_shirt_size=\'\' where $ColumnName is null; > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set not null; > > MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of > - usability > - see above > - performance > - uses index for for min()/max() > - reliability > - no need to use vacuum > - no need to dump and restore databases for version upgrade > - never screwed up any of my databases Please, read this carefully: http://sql-info.de/mysql/ > I would therefore urgently recommend that > 1) development of postgresql shall be immediately ceased > 2) any resources gained thereby (developers, mirrors) shall be donated > to MySQL > 3) code produced by the former postgresql developers shall be subject to > a mandatory peer review before it is included in MySQL Before blaming all the developers here, you should know that you are shooting without any effective ammo..... I am new to [hackers], i know, but i can\'t hold on me while reading this. Bernd
> ----- Original Message ----- >> ... >> MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of >> - never screwed up any of my databases > > Please, read this carefully: http://sql-info.de/mysql/ YIKES!. You don't have to read even at all carefully to see how dangerous MySQL can be for any kind of important data! I only had general, non-specific sense of how much better Postgresql was in comparison to MySQL, but that referenced page not only puts nails in the MySQL coffin, it completely reverses the sentiments originally expressed! >> I would therefore urgently recommend that >> 1) development of postgresql shall be immediately ceased >> 2) any resources gained thereby (developers, mirrors) shall be >> donated >> to MySQL >> 3) code produced by the former postgresql developers shall be subject >> to >> a mandatory peer review before it is included in MySQL ~Berend Tober
mailings@oopsware.de wrote: > Please, read this carefully: http://sql-info.de/mysql/ I can not believe it! Regards Gaetano Mendola
Hi, I think it is time to create a pgsql-humour list where such mails can be directed.. No point wasting energy answering such questions especially when they do not appear sincere.. Thomas Zehetbauer wrote: > Why do I have to use FOUR queries to accomplish the same result I can > get from MySQL with only ONE query: > > alter table users add column $ColumnName text; > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set default ''; > update users set t_shirt_size='' where $ColumnName is null; > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set not null; > > MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of > - usability > - see above > - performance > - uses index for for min()/max() > - reliability > - no need to use vacuum > - no need to dump and restore databases for version upgrade > - never screwed up any of my databases Lucky you..:-) > > I would therefore urgently recommend that > 1) development of postgresql shall be immediately ceased > 2) any resources gained thereby (developers, mirrors) shall be donated > to MySQL > 3) code produced by the former postgresql developers shall be subject to > a mandatory peer review before it is included in MySQL Shridhar
Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > Hi, > > I think it is time to create a pgsql-humour list where such mails can be directed.. > > No point wasting energy answering such questions especially when they do not > appear sincere.. That troll is known for quite some time ... and he doesn't even read these comments any more. I allways wonder what he gains from telling everyone how stupid he is and then walking away. But that's him. Jan > > Thomas Zehetbauer wrote: > >> Why do I have to use FOUR queries to accomplish the same result I can >> get from MySQL with only ONE query: >> >> alter table users add column $ColumnName text; >> alter table users alter column $ColumnName set default ''; >> update users set t_shirt_size='' where $ColumnName is null; >> alter table users alter column $ColumnName set not null; >> >> MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of >> - usability >> - see above >> - performance >> - uses index for for min()/max() >> - reliability >> - no need to use vacuum >> - no need to dump and restore databases for version upgrade >> - never screwed up any of my databases > > Lucky you..:-) > >> >> I would therefore urgently recommend that >> 1) development of postgresql shall be immediately ceased >> 2) any resources gained thereby (developers, mirrors) shall be donated >> to MySQL >> 3) code produced by the former postgresql developers shall be subject to >> a mandatory peer review before it is included in MySQL > > Shridhar > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Jan Wieck wrote: > Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I think it is time to create a pgsql-humour list where such mails can be directed.. > > > > No point wasting energy answering such questions especially when they do not > > appear sincere.. > > That troll is known for quite some time ... and he doesn't even read > these comments any more. I allways wonder what he gains from telling > everyone how stupid he is and then walking away. But that's him. well, to be perfectly honest, I think everyone drop'd him off of the CC list, so he never got any of the 'yo, idiot' messages :) > > > Jan > > > > > Thomas Zehetbauer wrote: > > > >> Why do I have to use FOUR queries to accomplish the same result I can > >> get from MySQL with only ONE query: > >> > >> alter table users add column $ColumnName text; > >> alter table users alter column $ColumnName set default ''; > >> update users set t_shirt_size='' where $ColumnName is null; > >> alter table users alter column $ColumnName set not null; > >> > >> MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of > >> - usability > >> - see above > >> - performance > >> - uses index for for min()/max() > >> - reliability > >> - no need to use vacuum > >> - no need to dump and restore databases for version upgrade > >> - never screwed up any of my databases > > > > Lucky you..:-) > > > >> > >> I would therefore urgently recommend that > >> 1) development of postgresql shall be immediately ceased > >> 2) any resources gained thereby (developers, mirrors) shall be donated > >> to MySQL > >> 3) code produced by the former postgresql developers shall be subject to > >> a mandatory peer review before it is included in MySQL > > > > Shridhar > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > > > -- > #======================================================================# > # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # > # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # > #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com # > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > joining column's datatypes do not match > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On a more serious note though I stopped doing comparisons between postgres and mysql a long time ago. As soon as I realized that it didn't have unions (yes I know that it does now) I never took it seriously again. But I have noticed some very good things about firebird. Namely: tested, solid, native replication both syncronous and asyncronous (at least they list this as a feature, I assume it works as advertised) native windows versions scales down better for embedded apps The first feature is something that is not a huge deal to me right now but it probably will be someday. Right now I do a full backup every 15 minutes and rsync it to a backup db server. As my databases are small right now this is not much of a problem. I'm hoping that this feature will pop up in postgres before it becomes a must have. The last two combined woudl be nice because we have code that runs on both our web apps running on linux but the same code is also embedded into some desktop apps that need to run on windows. Right now we just use sqlite and it works great but it would be nice to know that if I write some code for the server that it will "just work" on the desktop version because it is the exact same piece of software. Of course I'm sure there are many things that postgres has that firebird doesn't. I think that anyone who knows anything starts investigating open source databases is going to narrow it down to postgres and firebird. As important as it might be to have postgers vs mysql comparisons for those who are aren't aware of mysql's limitations I think it would be very useful to have a postgres vs firebird comparison. Does anyone have a link to such a comparison? Also can anyone elaborate on the features that postgres has that firebird lacks? If there were some obvious show stoppers in firebird it would save me the time of having to do a trial port of an app to firebird before I find them on my own. thanks, rg ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com> To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] add column sillyness > Hi, > > I think it is time to create a pgsql-humour list where such mails can be directed.. > > No point wasting energy answering such questions especially when they do not > appear sincere.. > > Thomas Zehetbauer wrote: > > > Why do I have to use FOUR queries to accomplish the same result I can > > get from MySQL with only ONE query: > > > > alter table users add column $ColumnName text; > > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set default ''; > > update users set t_shirt_size='' where $ColumnName is null; > > alter table users alter column $ColumnName set not null; > > > > MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of > > - usability > > - see above > > - performance > > - uses index for for min()/max() > > - reliability > > - no need to use vacuum > > - no need to dump and restore databases for version upgrade > > - never screwed up any of my databases > > Lucky you..:-) > > > > > I would therefore urgently recommend that > > 1) development of postgresql shall be immediately ceased > > 2) any resources gained thereby (developers, mirrors) shall be donated > > to MySQL > > 3) code produced by the former postgresql developers shall be subject to > > a mandatory peer review before it is included in MySQL > > Shridhar > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >
"Rick Gigger" <rick@alpinenetworking.com> writes:
> Does anyone have a link to such a comparison? Also can anyone elaborate on
> the features that postgres has that firebird lacks?
AFAICT, the main thing that Firebird lacks is a viable open-source
development community :-(. It's a nice bit of software, and I'd be
happy to see it doing better, but it seems like they just have not been
able to gather critical mass around it. So in any comparison you need
to factor in the likelihood that Postgres will be improving at a much
greater rate than Firebird.
regards, tom lane
> "Rick Gigger" <rick@alpinenetworking.com> writes: > > Does anyone have a link to such a comparison? Also can anyone elaborate on > > the features that postgres has that firebird lacks? > > AFAICT, the main thing that Firebird lacks is a viable open-source > development community :-(. It's a nice bit of software, and I'd be > happy to see it doing better, but it seems like they just have not been > able to gather critical mass around it. So in any comparison you need > to factor in the likelihood that Postgres will be improving at a much > greater rate than Firebird. Last night after posting this I asked myself. Could I get the same kind of support (basically an answer to any question within 24 hours from one of the actual postgres developers) with firebird that I can get here? I doubt it.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Rick Gigger wrote: > > "Rick Gigger" <rick@alpinenetworking.com> writes: > > > Does anyone have a link to such a comparison? Also can anyone elaborate > on > > > the features that postgres has that firebird lacks? > > > > AFAICT, the main thing that Firebird lacks is a viable open-source > > development community :-(. It's a nice bit of software, and I'd be > > happy to see it doing better, but it seems like they just have not been > > able to gather critical mass around it. So in any comparison you need > > to factor in the likelihood that Postgres will be improving at a much > > greater rate than Firebird. > > Last night after posting this I asked myself. Could I get the same kind of > support (basically an answer to any question within 24 hours from one of the > actual postgres developers) with firebird that I can get here? I doubt it. But it's just a theory until you test it. I'm willing to bet you'd get decent support on the simple stuff. But it's few projects that have the kind of developer support postgresql gets.
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Rick Gigger wrote: > > > > "Rick Gigger" <rick@alpinenetworking.com> writes: > > > > Does anyone have a link to such a comparison? Also can anyone elaborate > > on > > > > the features that postgres has that firebird lacks? > > > > > > AFAICT, the main thing that Firebird lacks is a viable open-source > > > development community :-(. It's a nice bit of software, and I'd be > > > happy to see it doing better, but it seems like they just have not been > > > able to gather critical mass around it. So in any comparison you need > > > to factor in the likelihood that Postgres will be improving at a much > > > greater rate than Firebird. > > > > Last night after posting this I asked myself. Could I get the same kind of > > support (basically an answer to any question within 24 hours from one of the > > actual postgres developers) with firebird that I can get here? I doubt it. > > But it's just a theory until you test it. I'm willing to bet you'd get > decent support on the simple stuff. But it's few projects that have the > kind of developer support postgresql gets. Yes, I didn't mean to make a statement about firebird support (which I know nothing about) but rather I was just trying to comment on and show appreciation for the amazing support that I get here. rg
> > MySQL is CLEARLY SUPERIOR in terms of > - usability > - see above > - performance > - uses index for for min()/max() > - reliability > - no need to use vacuum > - no need to dump and restore databases for version upgrade > - never screwed up any of my databases > You forgot space saving storage of floating point numbers: mysql> create table test(foo int); Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.51 sec) mysql> insert into test (foo) values (1.5); Query OK, 1 row affected (0.42 sec) mysql> select * from test; +------+ | foo | +------+ | 2 | +------+ 1 row in set (0.01 sec) eric
rick@alpinenetworking.com says... > tested, solid, native replication both syncronous and asyncronous (at least > they list this as a feature, I assume it works as advertised) As an Interbase/Firebird user, I'm confused by this. There is a replication solution, but AFAIK, it's commercial - not Open Source. > native windows versions This is true - if PostgreSQL got its install/setup as easy as for IB/FB, they would really start to go places! > scales down better for embedded apps There is a dll version available for single user apps - which makes installation very nice (on Windows). > The first feature is something that is not a huge deal to me right now but > it probably will be someday. Right now I do a full backup every 15 minutes > and rsync it to a backup db server. As my databases are small right now > this is not much of a problem. I'm hoping that this feature will pop up in > postgres before it becomes a must have. I thought that there was a commerical Replicator that has gone Open Source? Is there more than one project for PG? > Does anyone have a link to such a comparison? Also can anyone elaborate on > the features that postgres has that firebird lacks? If there were some > obvious show stoppers in firebird it would save me the time of having to do > a trial port of an app to firebird before I find them on my own. What would constitute a "show stopper" for you? Paul... > rg -- plinehan x__AT__x yahoo x__DOT__x com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post.
rick@alpinenetworking.com says... > Yes, I didn't mean to make a statement about firebird support (which I know > nothing about) But that didn't stop you actually making an (untrue) statement about it! > but rather I was just trying to comment on and show > appreciation for the amazing support that I get here. It appears to me that support is good here - however it is certainly comparable on the firebird lists. Paul... > rg -- plinehan x__AT__x yahoo x__DOT__x com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post.
rick@alpinenetworking.com says... > Last night after posting this I asked myself. Could I get the same kind of > support (basically an answer to any question within 24 hours from one of the > actual postgres developers) with firebird that I can get here? I doubt it. www.ibphoenix.com - go to lists and you will find actual developers also on the support list. Paul... -- plinehan x__AT__x yahoo x__DOT__x com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post.
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us says... > AFAICT, the main thing that Firebird lacks is a viable open-source > development community :-(. This is untrue - go to www.ibphoenix.com and follow the links to the lists. > It's a nice bit of software, and I'd be > happy to see it doing better, but it seems like they just have not been > able to gather critical mass around it. So in any comparison you need > to factor in the likelihood that Postgres will be improving at a much > greater rate than Firebird. Firebird seems to be holding its own in the battle with Interbase 7 (commerical product). Paul... > regards, tom lane -- plinehan x__AT__x yahoo x__DOT__x com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post.
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Paul Ganainm wrote: > > rick@alpinenetworking.com says... > > > Yes, I didn't mean to make a statement about firebird support (which I know > > nothing about) > > > But that didn't stop you actually making an (untrue) statement about it! What statement? That he doubted it? Given that he was admittedly not an expert on the issue (since he was asking about firebird), I think acting like he was making a statement of fact is reaching. At best I'd say it was an implication, and from his followup it's obvious that he didn't intend it that way.
> rick@alpinenetworking.com says... > > > Yes, I didn't mean to make a statement about firebird support (which I know > > nothing about) > > > But that didn't stop you actually making an (untrue) statement about it! I apologize. > > but rather I was just trying to comment on and show > > appreciation for the amazing support that I get here. > > > It appears to me that support is good here - however it is certainly > comparable on the firebird lists. Thanks for some valid info. At least my uninformed remarks got the attention of someone that knows what I want to know. :) This is the kind of info I was actually after when I started asking about firebird. rg
sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com says... > > But that didn't stop you actually making an (untrue) statement about it! > What statement? This statement I had no problem with - I could have jumped in and answered "Yes, you can". > Could I get the same kind of support (basically an answer to > any question within 24 hours from one of the actual postgres > developers) with firebird that I can get here? Then in reply to his own question, he says > I doubt it. He admitted later that he didn't know, which is fair enough. My point however would be that if one doesn't know, one should refrain from making remarks either way, especially bad (giving the benefit of the doubt is better IMHO). > That he doubted it? Given that he was admittedly not an > expert on the issue (since he was asking about firebird), I think acting > like he was making a statement of fact is reaching. At best I'd say it > was an implication, and from his followup it's obvious that he didn't > intend it that way. OK, OK, I'm not accusing the guy of a major crime or anything. I'm an Interbaser/Freebirder, and it does annoy me that somebody would automatically make the disparaging assumption, rather than the good one, much the same way here I see people giving out about MySQL's greater exposure despite being an inferior product, and who give out (rightly) about the troll who started this thread or people who think that the *_only_* serious database out there is Oracle. I'll just leave this thread here I think - suffice to say that I am slowly trying to immerse myself in PostgreSQL, and I think that your support setup here is second to none! It's better than Firebird's at the moment, because I think that mailing lists stink and I really *_really_* appreciate that you have a newsgroup mirror which threads well at news.gmane.org. I tried to get the Firebird lists onto it, but the admins didn't want to be mirrored - don't ask me why. The result of this bizarre policy is that I've posted far far less about Interbase than about PostgreSQL, a subject about which I know infinitely less - mostly in discussion type threads - I don't present myself as a guru - at least not yet! 8-) Paul... -- plinehan x__AT__x yahoo x__DOT__x com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post.
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us says... > > Does anyone have a link to such a comparison? Also can anyone elaborate on > > the features that postgres has that firebird lacks? I'll do a list tonight and post it here under a new thread with a title of somthing like "Interbase and PostgreSQL at the DB Corral". (I'm also frantically looking for a Firebird 1.5 fact sheet so that I can point out what's in FB and not in PG). Paul... -- plinehan x__AT__x yahoo x__DOT__x com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post.
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Paul Ganainm wrote: Firstly, I've played with IBPhoenix/Firebird a bit in the past, and met one or two of the developers a couple of years back. They reminded me a lot of the Postgresql developer folks, focused on getting it right, and rightly proud of their software package. They, in the words of my favorite Postgresql hacker, "got it." :-) I feel enriched having it and Postgresql in the realm of free / open source databases I can use. But that's not the main reason I replied. The next bit is why I hit 'R'... > I'll just leave this thread here I think - suffice to say that I am > slowly trying to immerse myself in PostgreSQL, and I think that your > support setup here is second to none! It's better than Firebird's at the > moment, because I think that mailing lists stink and I really *_really_* > appreciate that you have a newsgroup mirror which threads well at > news.gmane.org. > > I tried to get the Firebird lists onto it, but the admins didn't want to > be mirrored - don't ask me why. The result of this bizarre policy is > that I've posted far far less about Interbase than about PostgreSQL, a > subject about which I know infinitely less - mostly in discussion type > threads - I don't present myself as a guru - at least not yet! 8-) Wow. That says a lot. I know I found the lists in usenet before joining them, and love knowing that if I miss them for a week, I can just delete most of them and search for interesting phrases on groups.google.com in the last two weeks to catch up, or look up problems from a year or two back easily there or on the two or three full text engines available on the lists. I wonder if the Firebird folks would be amenable to having SOME lists on usenet. It would be nice to have the general help type list especially through a more easily accessible means. Welcome to the community, hope you enjoy it. :)
Hi I need to seriously look at replication for a 7.4 database in the next few weeks. I'm slightly confused by the different replication options that appear to be available (eg RServer, Mammoth Replication). Is there a definitive list of what replication products will work with 7.4, and how they compare feature wise, and what the cost implications are? John Sidney-Woollett
> tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us says... > > > > Does anyone have a link to such a comparison? Also can anyone elaborate on > > > the features that postgres has that firebird lacks? > > > I'll do a list tonight and post it here under a new thread with a title > of somthing like "Interbase and PostgreSQL at the DB Corral". > > (I'm also frantically looking for a Firebird 1.5 fact sheet so that I > can point out what's in FB and not in PG). Thank very much!