Thread: Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Dear all, Their was a huge rore about MySQL recently for something in java functions now theirs one more http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html Does this concern anyone. What I think is PostgreSQL would have less USP's (Uniqe Selling Points though we dont sell) now. What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection. Regards, Vishal Kashyap.
El Vie 26 Dic 2003 11:09, Sai Hertz And Control Systems escribió: > Dear all, > > Their was a huge rore about MySQL recently for something in java functions > now theirs one more > > http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html > > Does this concern anyone. > > What I think is PostgreSQL would have less USP's (Uniqe Selling Points > though we dont sell) now. > > What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection. 1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around..... lets say 2 years maybe? 2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, and are getting optimized every new release. -- select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email; ----------------------------------------------------------------- Martín Marqués | mmarques@unl.edu.ar Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telemática Universidad Nacional del Litoral -----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Marques wrote: > El Vie 26 Dic 2003 11:09, Sai Hertz And Control Systems escribió: >>Their was a huge rore about MySQL recently for something in java functions >>now theirs one more >>http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html >>Does this concern anyone. >>What I think is PostgreSQL would have less USP's (Uniqe Selling Points >>though we dont sell) now. >>What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection. > 1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around..... > lets say 2 years maybe? > 2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, and > are getting optimized every new release. Well, let's consolidate few points so as to save us some energy. 1. As a open source project, competition is no threat to postgresql. If mysql is gaining, fine for that that community. 2. Mysql has long way to go to be on par with postgresql. The differences are known and wildly documented. Meanwhile postgresql project will continue to fix bugs, add features and attempt to be better with every next release. Of course, this is business as usual. 3. If mysql works for you and is the best tool for the job, use it. but don't forget to evaluate latest postgresql release at least once an year. I think that covers most of the sensible points that can come up in such a discussion..What say? Shridhar
Having worked with both MySQL and Postgresql, there is one thing that most people overlook with all the hoopla about new features in MySQL. One that I find impacts my clients and helps with their decision to move to Postgresql. When using the new features on OLD MySQL databases, most of the time this means a major coversion. You can't use the old "MyISAM" tables, you have to add the new features, use their new Innodb table structure, and write all the stuff anyway. Add in the table redesign, and normalization that didn't happen originally and the decision about the database becomes a business decision, not a political argumen. My argument at that point is, "Postgresql was designed to do those things, they are not 'added features'. They are new to MySQL and since you have to re-write anyway..." So far, the clients have chosen Postgresql. Many of them are frustrated with the lack of features in MySQL and simply are ready to move for the right reasons. MySQL is great for a simple, fast, list manager, but once you start needing constraints, functions, or any other 'normal' database features it falls apart. I think the Postgresql team is doing well, they focus on Postgresql, not what MySQL might do. I say keep up the good work! -- Ken Harris Senior Consultant http://www.lhinfo.com (410) 597-8916 Quoting Martin Marques <martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar>: > El Vie 26 Dic 2003 11:09, Sai Hertz And Control Systems escribió: > > Dear all, > > > > Their was a huge rore about MySQL recently for something in java functions > > now theirs one more > > > > http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html > > > > Does this concern anyone. > > > > What I think is PostgreSQL would have less USP's (Uniqe Selling Points > > though we dont sell) now. > > > > What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection. > > 1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around..... > lets say 2 years maybe? > 2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, and > > are getting optimized every new release. > > -- > select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email; > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Martín Marqués | mmarques@unl.edu.ar > Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telemática > Universidad Nacional > del Litoral > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---------------------------(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 > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Sai Hertz And Control Systems wrote: > Dear all, > > Their was a huge rore about MySQL recently for something in java functions > now theirs one more > > http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html > > Does this concern anyone. It seems to concern MySQL now at least. They have changed their minds on many enterprise features that PostgreSQL has for years. The strategy of misguiding people like "you don't need foreign keys", "you don't need stored procedures", "yadda yadda triggers", "blah blah views" didn't work forever. So they have to add or propose those features one by one. Let's see them when they're done, okay? Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Dear Martin Marques, >>What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection. >> >> > >1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around..... >lets say 2 years maybe? >2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago, and >are getting optimized every new release. > > 2 Years sounds good but does it matter ? , some day or other MySQL is going to have more cutting edge features which are already is loaded with features like Windows Port , Speed etc. NOTE : Here I would like to mention I truly love PostgreSQL and at the same time succesfully using it my all apps but I am concerned with slow growth rate of popularity ( of PostgreSQL) and this new feature of MySQL today or tommorow will be a threat. And may push back PostgreSQL for enterprise class applications. Regards, Vishal Kashyap.
> 2 Years sounds good but does it matter ? , some day or other MySQL is > going to have more cutting edge features which are already is loaded > with features like Windows Port , Speed etc. > > NOTE : > Here I would like to mention I truly love PostgreSQL and at the same > time succesfully using it my all apps but I am concerned > with slow growth rate of popularity ( of PostgreSQL) and this new > feature of MySQL today or tommorow will be a threat. > And may push back PostgreSQL for enterprise class applications. > > Regards, > Vishal Kashyap. All this time complaining about how popular MySQL is would be better spend to make the docs more clear. I have talked about this before.. I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would expect it in the docs. Most will stick with what they know instead of taking many many hours to investigate what it takes to developer with PG as database. B.
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Sai Hertz And Control Systems wrote: > Dear Martin Marques, > > 2 Years sounds good but does it matter ? , some day or other MySQL is > going to have more cutting edge features which are already is loaded > with features like Windows Port , Speed etc. How do you figure that? In 2 years, we will be that much further along with our 'cutting edge features' that MySQL will still have a large gap to catch up with ... there has been alot of commit's recently by Bruce for the native windows port, and each release to date has always been that much faster then the previous one ... > Here I would like to mention I truly love PostgreSQL and at the same > time succesfully using it my all apps but I am concerned with slow > growth rate of popularity ( of PostgreSQL) and this new feature of MySQL > today or tommorow will be a threat. And may push back PostgreSQL for > enterprise class applications. I don't believe so ... ppl aren't going to wait 2 years for what PostgreSQL has now to implement ... and once implemented, they aren't going to switch everything over to MySQL just because they finally have that feature ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would > expect it in the docs. Like ... ? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, one doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc. Dave On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > > > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to > > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would > > expect it in the docs. > > Like ... ? > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > ---------------------------(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 > >
Dear Jan Wieck , >> http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html >> >> Does this concern anyone. > > It seems to concern MySQL now at least. They have changed their minds > on many enterprise features that PostgreSQL has for years. The > strategy of misguiding people like "you don't need foreign keys", "you > don't need stored procedures", "yadda yadda triggers", "blah blah > views" didn't work forever. So they have to add or propose those > features one by one. Thats very well said I never thought of this. Now I have a tool to bash my peers who are tilted toward MySQL . > Let's see them when they're done, okay? Joining you :-) Regards , Vishal Kashyap
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote: > One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, one > doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as > interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc. Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid webmaster that has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to control everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ... > > Dave > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > > > > > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to > > > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would > > > expect it in the docs. > > > > Like ... ? > > > > ---- > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > > > ---------------------------(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 > > > > > > > ---------------------------(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
> http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-5.0.x.html > > Does this concern anyone. Well from one perspective MySQL is still playing catch up. While they are adding features that they still don't have stable OR that are labelled "Basic Support", PostgreSQL has had mature support for a long time. > What I think is PostgreSQL would have less USP's (Uniqe Selling Points > though we dont sell) now. Yes and know. USP is great, but we can argue (and will be able to for a LONG LONG TIME) that, "Sure mySQL can do that... sort of." > > What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection. It is never good to be placid in the industry but I think you will continue to see PostgreSQL growth. I get phone calls weekly from people who have come to realize that MySQL is just a toy. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > Regards, > Vishal Kashyap. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes: Jan> It seems to concern MySQL now at least. They have changed their minds Jan> on many enterprise features that PostgreSQL has for years. The Jan> strategy of misguiding people like "you don't need foreign keys", "you Jan> don't need stored procedures", "yadda yadda triggers", "blah blah Jan> views" didn't work forever. So they have to add or propose those Jan> features one by one. I've noticed a similar strategy in the PHP vs Perl dimension. PHP started out being "simple and fast and easy to learn" by throwing off all of the "complexities of Perl that weren't needed". Slowly and steadily, lagging about 3 to 10 years behind, PHP has adding one-by-one all those "weird Perl features", but doing a poor job of integrating them. So, you can get PHP for 2007 already. It's called Perl, and it's probably already installed on your box. "PostgreSQL is where MySQL will be in five years" might be a good catchmeme. Anyone wanna run with it? -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
El Vie 26 Dic 2003 13:18, Sai Hertz And Control Systems escribió:
> Dear Martin Marques,
>
> >>What do you think yes we PostgreSQL users need some introspection.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >1) This is in the 5.0.0 development tree, which could come out around.....
> >lets say 2 years maybe?
> >2) Stored Procedures with those features are already in PG long time ago,
and
> >are getting optimized every new release.
> >
> >
> 2 Years sounds good but does it matter ? , some day or other MySQL is
> going to have more cutting edge features which are already is loaded
> with features like Windows Port , Speed etc.
Windows native port might be out in the next release (name it 7.5 or 8.0),
with many other things there, and it should be out by fall of next year,
which is much earlier then 2 years. :-)
--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | mmarques@unl.edu.ar
Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telemática
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>I've noticed a similar strategy in the PHP vs Perl dimension. PHP >started out being "simple and fast and easy to learn" by throwing off >all of the "complexities of Perl that weren't needed". > >Slowly and steadily, lagging about 3 to 10 years behind, PHP has >adding one-by-one all those "weird Perl features", but doing a poor >job of integrating them. > > In another vein, PHP has added the features as their market has required them. Yes Perl has more features that PHP but so what? PHP works for those who use it. MySQL works for those who use it. That I believe is the fundamental problem with PostgreSQL vs. MySQL. They are different products: MS Access is a database MSSQL is a database Both have SQL capabilities... Which one would you run for your accounting system? O.k. I wouldn't run MSSQL for an accounting system either but I think my point is made... Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >So, you can get PHP for 2007 already. It's called Perl, and it's >probably already installed on your box. > >"PostgreSQL is where MySQL will be in five years" might be a good >catchmeme. Anyone wanna run with it? > > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Hi all; Regarding the questions of MySQL and PostgreSQL, I do expect PostgreSQL to continue to grow more slowly than MySQL for some time. However MySQL has a few problems in their approach that PostgreSQL lacks, and in time, there is no doubt in my mind that, of the open source databases available today, that PostgreSQL will be the winner. The problems with MySQL's include: 1: Trying to make the database manager tolerant of user errors by avoiding raising exceptions. PostgreSQL tries to make the database tolerant of user errors by raising exceptions where appropriate! 2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the database manager. This slows their rate of development and we will continue to move faster than them. Regarding PHP vs Perl as equivalent to MySQL vs. PostgreSQL, I disagree completely. PHP has a number of design elements which make it idea for many types of applications, while Perl's DIFFERENT design concepts make it ideal for a different set of applications. Many of these are completely opposite and irreconcilable. Perl and PHP are just to different to compare. I use both and appreciate both. MySQL and PostgreSQL are completely different. When I started learning PostgreSQL, it was a real PITA (version 6.5). I started to learn MySQL because it was far easier to manage than PostgreSQL was at the time. When I would develop PostgreSQL apps, I would usually prototype them on MySQL! But things have changed. PostgreSQL is every bit as easy to use now as MySQL for most, possibly even all, environments. A Windows port would be nice (hope it is out soon), but if not, that is what Firebird is for ;-) Lastly on the need for introspection-- I think we do need introspection. Not because of any imaginary gains that MySQL has made, but because we will always do better if we are rethinking and questioning our methodology. Introspection is always a good thing, and we should not wait for a competitive need. Best WIshes, Chris Travers
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote: > 2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the > database manager. This slows their rate of development and we will > continue to move faster than them. This could be argued both ways, actually ... their model makes for less discussions on how to implement things ... they decide to implement it, do it and commit the code without having to worry about whether anyone else agrees with it ... The flip side to this, of course, is the lack of input from other developers who may (or may not) agree with how it is being implemented ... > Regarding PHP vs Perl as equivalent to MySQL vs. PostgreSQL, I disagree > completely. PHP has a number of design elements which make it idea for > many types of applications, while Perl's DIFFERENT design concepts make > it ideal for a different set of applications. Many of these are > completely opposite and irreconcilable. Perl and PHP are just to > different to compare. I use both and appreciate both. I do agree on this one ... I switched over to PHP years back for Web based apps, since I liked its forms handling (always hated using the CGI modules for perl) ... but, for straight utilities, perl or shell is still my favorite ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Hi all, Comments inline ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> To: "Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com> Cc: <aspire420@hotpop.com>; <pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org>; <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 9:18 AM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote: > > > 2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the > > database manager. This slows their rate of development and we will > > continue to move faster than them. > > This could be argued both ways, actually ... their model makes for less > discussions on how to implement things ... they decide to implement it, do > it and commit the code without having to worry about whether anyone else > agrees with it ... > > The flip side to this, of course, is the lack of input from other > developers who may (or may not) agree with how it is being implemented ... Actually my concern here is something else. Open source is a very different software development methodology than proprietary software development is. Some time ago, in the MySQL manuals, I had actually see them claim that the larger development community of PostgreSQL was a bad thing. See-- here is the problem: Open Source development is at its best when the core team, in addition to doing development, help to foster an environment whereby the project grows in community-driven ways. I am not sure that a close corporate control over an open source project will ever lead to optimal software because the software will end up stuck between worlds. This is a major problem for some open source projects. I have always been a firm believer that software can be either proprietary or open source, but that the two cannot be combined well into one for general purpose tools and platforms. I feel that this is the mistake that Caldera made which has lead to their fall from one of the leading distros to the current situation where it is not even maintained anymore. In trying to sell Linux as if it were a proprietary platform, they allowed Red Hat in particular to out-manuver them. This is the same problem that Trolltech and MySQL AB have today, for which UserLinux has decided to use GNOME instead of KDE, and I would be surprised if people selling proprietary apps would choose MySQL over PostgreSQL. Simply put my point is that software can be proprietary or open source, but projects which try to do both often end up losing out. I see MySQL as trying to do both. As much as I like the idea of open sourse software, at this time, there is still a substantial market for proprietary applications, and although it may fade over time (and has already done so considerably), it is a market that must open source software must co-exist with rather than simply attempting to assimilate or trying to belong to both communities.. This is also why I have argued that the GPL is intended for self-contained projects, of which MySQL is not, when you include the client libs. In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near or long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists. Firebird is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being as easy to use as PostgreSQL. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Martin Marques (Friday 26 December 2003 14:11) > Windows native port might be out in the next release (name it 7.5 or 8.0), > with many other things there, and it should be out by fall of next year, > which is much earlier then 2 years. :-) Great. But I really don't see how this makes the DBMS any better at all. So what if there's a native Windows port? Nobody that I've ever met or talked to uses MySQL on Windows anyways, and you can always use cygwin if you're really desperate. PostgreSQL is primarily an open-source database for open-source systems. If somebody wants to use MySQL just because they can run it on Windows, I say let them. What I *do* see is a whole bunch of MySQL users running around yapping about how great and fantastic and fast MySQL is and how crappy PostgreSQL is. I really don't understand them, and they're impossible to reason with. You can ask "Does MySQL support nested select statements? I use these every day", and they respond with "You can just use MySQL's proprietary SQL extensions to do the same thing another way; and MySQL is fast, too!". I think about the same of these people as I do of people who rave about the superiority of Windows, their chosen religion, or the country they live in - underinformed bigots. From all that I've read in terms of power, flexibility, and features, PostgreSQL is far ahead of MySQL. And I've yet to see even the slightest speed issue with a properly designed database schema. Maybe MySQL is faster with un-normalized tables, and that's why they like to say it's faster? I don't know, but I really don't care if that's the case. Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) cshobe@softhome.net / http://rivyn.livejournal.com Jabber: sigthor@jabber.org; ICQ: 1494523; AIM/Yahoo: SomeLinuxGuy Free development contributor of: > KDE toolbar icons > Kopete user interface, usability, and testing > X11 Icelandic Dvorak keymaps > Reporting of over 100 Kopete bugs
Regardless of the reasons, perception is reality. If we appear to be disheveled then we are. I would think that it should be possible to give the appearance of unity without actually requiring a full time web-master? Dave On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 12:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, one > > doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as > > interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc. > > Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid webmaster that > has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to control > everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ... > > > > > Dave > > > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > > > > > > > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to > > > > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would > > > > expect it in the docs. > > > > > > Like ... ? > > > > > > ---- > > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > > > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > > > > > ---------------------------(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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(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 > > ---------------------------(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 > >
Jan Wieck (Friday 26 December 2003 10:02) > The strategy of misguiding people like "you don't need foreign keys", "you > don't need stored procedures", "yadda yadda triggers", "blah blah views" > didn't work forever. PRECISELY my point! But so many ignorant users fall for this and babble on saying the exact same thing when they come attacking you for choosing PostgreSQL. Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) cshobe@softhome.net / http://rivyn.livejournal.com Jabber: sigthor@jabber.org; ICQ: 1494523; AIM/Yahoo: SomeLinuxGuy Free development contributor of: > KDE toolbar icons > Kopete user interface, usability, and testing > X11 Icelandic Dvorak keymaps > Reporting of over 100 Kopete bugs
Chris Travers (Saturday 27 December 2003 06:44) > In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near or > long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists. Firebird > is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to > learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being as > easy to use as PostgreSQL. It all depends on the user community. People thought Christianity was a joke and would never be a serious threat to the pre-existing religions - look at the state of things today :\. You can blind yourselves to the users, but do this for long enough, and you'll discover you don't have any users, no matter how great your product might be. We live in a very strange world where people use what they see advertised the most, or what the most of their friends have told them to use, instead of doing actual research and making an educated decision. As a PostgreSQL user, I've had to deal with at least 20-30 MySQL nazis telling me that *I'm* the ignorant and accursed one, whereas I've met one guy who likes PostgreSQL. But I do not think the database needs improvement...IMHO it's already quite a lot better than MySQL. I think popular opinion needs to be less ignorant. And I don't know how to suggest doing that. P.S. What's this Firebird thing of which you speak? Is there now an open-source DBMS with the same name as an open-source web browser? Uh-oh... Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) cshobe@softhome.net / http://rivyn.livejournal.com Jabber: sigthor@jabber.org; ICQ: 1494523; AIM/Yahoo: SomeLinuxGuy Free development contributor of: > KDE toolbar icons > Kopete user interface, usability, and testing > X11 Icelandic Dvorak keymaps > Reporting of over 100 Kopete bugs
On Saturday 27 December 2003 20:24, Casey Allen Shobe wrote: > P.S. What's this Firebird thing of which you speak? Is there now an > open-source DBMS with the same name as an open-source web browser? > Uh-oh... Check http://firebird.sourceforge.net/ Shridhar
Why is everyone so concerned about how Postgres is product-placed compared to MySQL? Do you really care whether users prefer MySQL or Postgres? Why don't you just focus on your growing Postgres userbase, the core product, and keep refining it (as you are). Granted you need to keep looking around to see what other DB's offer, and keep the product fresh and current. As long time Oracle developer recently converted to Postgres, I think that you would all do better to use Oracle as your benchmark instead of MySQL. Oracle has become the enterprise defacto DB standard (through marketing and general capability). But Oracle certainly isn't perfect - it has some stinkers in it. The worst thing is lock-in. You get some nice features, and then once you're committed it is very hard to get away again. Don't just focus on the open source market, because I'll bet that there are many commercial projects and enterprises who don't need much of a nudge, and who would be willing to put Postgres in instead of Oracle, Sybase or DB2. I know the DBA of one company paying $800,000 a year in Oracle licences and support contracts that was seriously looking at Postgres to provide the same capability for MUCH less cost. Unfortunately, there were a few show stoppers; no nested transaction support (#pragma autonomous), a (perceived) lack of replication/distributed solutions, no real file level admin (tablespaces etc). And the last straw was the amount of effort that they would have to expend to port their app from Oracle to Postgres - due in part to relying on features like Oracle's Context cartridge (free text searching). Postgres isn't far behind Oracle in terms of catch up on the missing features, and in many way far exceeds Oracle. I suspect that within a few versions, Postgres will match or exceed Oracle's capabilities. Right now I would have no problem advising a client to use Postgres instead of Oracle (except where one of the show stoppers is an issue). What will really make sit and pay attention is when you see large project's and clients migrate from Oracle, DB2, Sybase to postgres, and when this gets widely reported. Perhaps the biggest danger to Postgres then is Oracle waking up to a perceived threat from Postgres, and starting to use its muscle to spread FUD about Postgres. The best story I heard about Oracle (and I don't know if it's true or not), is that Oracle would not run their internal support systems on an Oracle DB up to version 4 (maybe 5) of Oracle due to reliability concerns... Stop worrying about MySQL - I'm not sure that you want those users until they hit a deadend with MySQL and are wanting to trade up to an enterprise solution. I just have to add that Postgres (the db, and the postgres community) is GREAT! I'm sold on it! John Sidney-Woollett Chris Travers said: > Hi all, > Comments inline > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> > To: "Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com> > Cc: <aspire420@hotpop.com>; <pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org>; > <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> > Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 9:18 AM > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > > >> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote: >> > 2: Maintaining centralized corporate control over everything in the database manager. This slows their rate of development and we will continue to move faster than them. >> This could be argued both ways, actually ... their model makes for less discussions on how to implement things ... they decide to implement it, do >> it and commit the code without having to worry about whether anyone else >> agrees with it ... >> The flip side to this, of course, is the lack of input from other developers who may (or may not) agree with how it is being implemented ... > > Actually my concern here is something else. Open source is a very different > software development methodology than proprietary software development is. > Some time ago, in the MySQL manuals, I had actually see them claim that the > larger development community of PostgreSQL was a bad thing. > > See-- here is the problem: Open Source development is at its best when the > core team, in addition to doing development, help to foster an environment > whereby the project grows in community-driven ways. I am not sure that a > close corporate control over an open source project will ever lead to optimal software because the software will end up stuck between worlds. This is a major problem for some open source projects. > > I have always been a firm believer that software can be either proprietary > or open source, but that the two cannot be combined well into one for general purpose tools and platforms. I feel that this is the mistake that > Caldera made which has lead to their fall from one of the leading distros > to > the current situation where it is not even maintained anymore. In trying > to > sell Linux as if it were a proprietary platform, they allowed Red Hat in particular to out-manuver them. This is the same problem that Trolltech and > MySQL AB have today, for which UserLinux has decided to use GNOME instead > of > KDE, and I would be surprised if people selling proprietary apps would choose MySQL over PostgreSQL. > > Simply put my point is that software can be proprietary or open source, but > projects which try to do both often end up losing out. I see MySQL as trying to do both. > > As much as I like the idea of open sourse software, at this time, there is > still a substantial market for proprietary applications, and although it may > fade over time (and has already done so considerably), it is a market that > must open source software must co-exist with rather than simply attempting > to assimilate or trying to belong to both communities.. This is also why > I > have argued that the GPL is intended for self-contained projects, of which > MySQL is not, when you include the client libs. > > In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near or > long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists. Firebird > is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being as > easy to use as PostgreSQL. > > Best Wishes, > Chris Travers > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html >
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:54:28 +0530 Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com> wrote: > On Saturday 27 December 2003 20:24, Casey Allen Shobe wrote: > > P.S. What's this Firebird thing of which you speak? Is there now an > > open-source DBMS with the same name as an open-source web browser? > > Uh-oh... > Check http://firebird.sourceforge.net/ note that Firebird (the Interbase spinoff) used the name before Firebird (the Mozilla spinoff) did. richard -- Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
On 26 Dec 2003, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > I've noticed a similar strategy in the PHP vs Perl dimension. PHP > started out being "simple and fast and easy to learn" by throwing off > all of the "complexities of Perl that weren't needed". > > Slowly and steadily, lagging about 3 to 10 years behind, PHP has > adding one-by-one all those "weird Perl features", but doing a poor > job of integrating them. Well, I hope that this doesn't parallel Postgres and MySQL, because it would spell doom for Postgres. http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200311/apachemods.html Frankly, despite all it's weaknesses and inconsistencies, PHP *is* easier to use and faster to develop than Perl. At least this is what my experience has shown me and it seems that the survey above reflects the same thing. Since my experience with Postgres hasn't been that it is easier than MySQL (quite the opposite in fact), perhaps some work needs to be done to either dispel that myth, or to make sure that Postgres is easier to use (since I started with Postgres and learned MySQL afterwards). I know it sucks, but ease of use/simplicity goes a long way, often further than performance, features and stability. Cheers, Chris -- Christopher Murtagh Enterprise Systems Administrator ISR / Web Communications Group McGill University Montreal, Quebec Canada Tel.: (514) 398-3122 Fax: (514) 398-2017
>>>>> "John" == John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw@wardbrook.com> writes: John> Why is everyone so concerned about how Postgres is John> product-placed compared to MySQL? Do you really care whether John> users prefer MySQL or Postgres? I care, because as a consultant, I'm called in to solve other people's problems when they most need help. And I'd rather solve problems in PostgreSQL than farking around with MySQL. I also am in an opportunity to be called in during the early phases of project assessment and design. There, I have an opportunity to talk about choice of database amongst other things. So, I need to be armed with facts about choices, more than just anecdotes. So this is a useful thread, for those areas of my business. Please continue. :) -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
That's a fair point. I used to get the same debate from customers when they wanted M$SqlServer, and I would always try to steer them towards Oracle (even if the starting point DB was simple). For me this was a no brainer (having used both products), but it sometimes took a lot of convincing even when Oracle provided no OS lock in, reliability, scalability, good 3rd party toolsets, and loads of consultants willing/able to support it. I'm not sure a comparison matrix is always helpful, because on paper products can look comparable, but can be wildly different in real use. We all drive cars, and they get you from A to B - in a paper feature comparison they can be made to look fairly identical, but their real life experience can be completely different. I guess my point was really to use an enterprise database like Oracle as a yard stick to judge Postgres against. Although the newer versions of Oracle are becoming bloatware, so you need to be careful! Compare MySQL to make a case for using Postgres over MySQL, sure. I understand why you'd want and need to do that. It just seems that some people are becoming fixated on the number of features implemented in either MySQL or Postgres instead of looking at the sum total of all the parts. John Sidney-Woollett Randal L. Schwartz said: >>>>>> "John" == John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw@wardbrook.com> writes: > > John> Why is everyone so concerned about how Postgres is > John> product-placed compared to MySQL? Do you really care whether > John> users prefer MySQL or Postgres? > > I care, because as a consultant, I'm called in to solve other people's > problems when they most need help. And I'd rather solve problems > in PostgreSQL than farking around with MySQL. > > I also am in an opportunity to be called in during the early phases of > project assessment and design. There, I have an opportunity to talk > about choice of database amongst other things. So, I need to be armed > with facts about choices, more than just anecdotes. > > So this is a useful thread, for those areas of my business. Please > continue. :) > > -- > Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 > 0095 > <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> > Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. > See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl > training! >
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 27 December 2003 08:29 am, Christopher Murtagh wrote: > On 26 Dec 2003, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > > I've noticed a similar strategy in the PHP vs Perl dimension. PHP > > started out being "simple and fast and easy to learn" by throwing off > > all of the "complexities of Perl that weren't needed". > > > > Slowly and steadily, lagging about 3 to 10 years behind, PHP has > > adding one-by-one all those "weird Perl features", but doing a poor > > job of integrating them. > > Well, I hope that this doesn't parallel Postgres and MySQL, because > it would spell doom for Postgres. > > http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200311/apachemods.html > > Frankly, despite all it's weaknesses and inconsistencies, PHP *is* easier > to use and faster to develop than Perl. At least this is what my > experience has shown me and it seems that the survey above reflects the > same thing. > > Since my experience with Postgres hasn't been that it is easier than > MySQL (quite the opposite in fact), perhaps some work needs to be done to > either dispel that myth, or to make sure that Postgres is easier to use > (since I started with Postgres and learned MySQL afterwards). > > I know it sucks, but ease of use/simplicity goes a long way, often > further than performance, features and stability. > The problem with "making it easy" is clearly visible with M$ products. Stupid clicking makes it sooo easy and convenient that anyone with an IQ higher than a coffee-maker thinks he's a "system administator" just because he can click onto the contolpanel. My point is, that postgres is a fully featured database and mysql isn't. There is only a certain degree of "making it easy" in a complex environment. And IMHO there should be a certain degree of complexity to handle the system, otherwise every idiot will call himself database administrator and screw up things really bad UC - -- Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 2570 Fleetwood Drive Phone: +1 650 872 2425 San Bruno, CA 94066 Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States Fax: +1 650 872 2417 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/7c/vjqGXBvRToM4RAuPMAKC7XdErDIma9Ey4GXqGnE4/ZVQPpwCeNx88 rZ3/Ji90E2cd2tTd9lySg3Y= =s94v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Sidney-Woollett wrote: >Why is everyone so concerned about how Postgres is product-placed compared >to MySQL? Do you really care whether users prefer MySQL or Postgres? > It's a natural frustration stemming from watching our fellow humans toil needlessly. This is a study of human psycology that we all do to some extent and when we see our value of "better product should be rewarded more than a lesser product" there are cracks in the foundations of our motives. > >Why don't you just focus on your growing Postgres userbase, the core >product, and keep refining it (as you are). Granted you need to keep >looking around to see what other DB's offer, and keep the product fresh >and current. > Understanding the competition is usually neccessary to achieve this. ... > >I just have to add that Postgres (the db, and the postgres community) is >GREAT! I'm sold on it! > > Agreed.
But your examples also lists things like interface libraries. For postgresql to do that, we would have to pick specific interfaces applications / libraries, then have them all centralize their development/release process around the main distribution. If you can get everyone to agree to this (and I recommend starting by picking the official python interface), we can start down a unified path, but I don't see it happening. Robert Treat On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 09:41, Dave Cramer wrote: > Regardless of the reasons, perception is reality. If we appear to be > disheveled then we are. > > I would think that it should be possible to give the appearance of unity > without actually requiring a full time web-master? > > > Dave > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 12:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > > One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, one > > > doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as > > > interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc. > > > > Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid webmaster that > > has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to control > > everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ... > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to > > > > > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would > > > > > expect it in the docs. > > > > > > > > Like ... ? > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > > > > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > > > -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 13:26, John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
> It just seems that some people are becoming fixated on the number of
> features implemented in either MySQL or Postgres instead of looking at the
> sum total of all the parts.
>
I'd tend to agree given that mysql's alpha uber new java pl language
with no given release date generates this much concern on these lists,
while microsofts next version of m$ $ql $erver is planning on having
.net compatible pl's, which should give them the ability to program pl
in multiple languages (like we currently have). This is a much better
feature and coming from a company I have more faith in to deliver the
goods than mysql and their javapl.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Well, I'm not suggesting that we force them to do anything, just give the appearance of unity, this should be possible with tools available, no? Dave On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 16:57, Robert Treat wrote: > But your examples also lists things like interface libraries. For > postgresql to do that, we would have to pick specific interfaces > applications / libraries, then have them all centralize their > development/release process around the main distribution. If you can get > everyone to agree to this (and I recommend starting by picking the > official python interface), we can start down a unified path, but I > don't see it happening. > > Robert Treat > > On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 09:41, Dave Cramer wrote: > > Regardless of the reasons, perception is reality. If we appear to be > > disheveled then we are. > > > > I would think that it should be possible to give the appearance of unity > > without actually requiring a full time web-master? > > > > > > Dave > > > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 12:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > > > > One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, one > > > > doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as > > > > interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc. > > > > > > Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid webmaster that > > > has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to control > > > everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ... > > > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to > > > > > > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would > > > > > > expect it in the docs. > > > > > > > > > > Like ... ? > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > > > > > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > > > >
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Carl Anderson wrote: > This sentiment of ease of use is being repeated in this thread. Can > those of you who feel that Postgres has ease of use problems be a bit > more specific. Something like: I'm not sure that Postgres is harder to use than MySQL (this is why I called it a myth). Now, because I started with Postgres first and then had to support MySQL afterward, I found MySQL a pain (and still do). Frankly, I think that Postgres is a wonderful product, and this is why I use it for everything that I do. Our university has just paid a one-time fee for perpetual Oracle licenses, so for me Postgres and Oracle are at the same level in terms of cost - and I still chose Postgres, mostly because I found it easier to administer than Oracle. However, there are some areas where I think Postgres could be a bit more user friendly: Some clearer documentation on the postgresql.conf settings, with perhaps some example setups. The default settings are really not good for much (which is stated in the docs), but perhaps having a DB 'slow' out of the box for almost every setting is not a great idea. Maybe a configuration script? (Dare I say 'Wizard'?) MacOS X binaries. I have a bunch of friends who keep asking me MySQL questions for their MacOS X machines (laptops and desktops). Since I don't use MacOS much (despite the fact that my laptop is a Powerbook G4) and MySQL even less, I can't be of much help. My first advice is always 'remove MySQL and install Postgres', which never gets a welcome response. I might be able to help in this area in terms of providing a box to do MacOS X builds, etc.. Marc Liyanage's page (http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/postgresql/) is pretty helpful, but not easy to find from the postgres.org site. The other reason why a lot of friends of mine use MySQL is because the dinky PHP/Perl/etc blog/photo gallery/web app they found on Freshmeat, etc. was built without a database abstraction layer and needs to be gutted to support Postgres. Maybe this is where the advocacy site and community can help the most. We could list these utilities that only support MySQL and ask for members of the community to contact the developers to help them support Postgres. Now, there are a lot of these types of apps, most of them aren't worth downloading let alone fixing, but unfortunately I suspect this preventing a lot of people from using Postgres. Anyway, those are just a couple of ideas. I'd be happy to help out with some of them in anyway that I could. If anyone wants to spearhead these, let me know if you need help. Cheers, Chris -- Christopher Murtagh Enterprise Systems Administrator ISR / Web Communications Group McGill University Montreal, Quebec Canada Tel.: (514) 398-3122 Fax: (514) 398-2017
Regarding the importance of PostgreSQL on Windows. For example, I am developing a hotel reservation management application using Python and PostgreSQL (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openres). This will only run on Linux and UNIX, so in order to get this to run on Windows, I need to use either MySQL or Firebird. Or aI can require Cygwin. But that is a bit over the top IMO, for a small hotel or B&B to consider, especially because I want to run it if possible on existing equipment to keep implimentation costs down. Best WIshes, Chris Travers
Hi all; The problem with trying to maintain an image of unity is that PostgreSQL is moving in a direction of being sort of like a kernel. In this sense, we already are unified. But regarding new types, client libs, etc. then unity is neither necessary nor desirable IMO. If that is something that some people see here as important, maybe they can start their own PostgreSQL "distributions." Maybe we can link to them via the PostgreSQL advocacy site :-) Best Wishes, Chris Travers ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Cramer" <pg@fastcrypt.com> To: "Robert Treat" <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>; <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 5:31 AM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > Well, I'm not suggesting that we force them to do anything, just give > the appearance of unity, this should be possible with tools available, > no? > > Dave > On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 16:57, Robert Treat wrote: > > But your examples also lists things like interface libraries. For > > postgresql to do that, we would have to pick specific interfaces > > applications / libraries, then have them all centralize their > > development/release process around the main distribution. If you can get > > everyone to agree to this (and I recommend starting by picking the > > official python interface), we can start down a unified path, but I > > don't see it happening. > > > > Robert Treat > > > > On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 09:41, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > Regardless of the reasons, perception is reality. If we appear to be > > > disheveled then we are. > > > > > > I would think that it should be possible to give the appearance of unity > > > without actually requiring a full time web-master? > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 12:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > > > > > > One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, one > > > > > doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as > > > > > interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc. > > > > > > > > Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid webmaster that > > > > has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to control > > > > everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's hard to > > > > > > > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I would > > > > > > > expect it in the docs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Like ... ? > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > > > > > > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(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 > >
----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Murtagh" <christopher.murtagh@mcgill.ca> > Since my experience with Postgres hasn't been that it is easier than > MySQL (quite the opposite in fact), perhaps some work needs to be done to > either dispel that myth, or to make sure that Postgres is easier to use > (since I started with Postgres and learned MySQL afterwards). > When I started with PostgreSQL and MySQL, MySQL was far easier to use, especially during the prototyping phase. I would actually do all my prototyping on MySQL and then migrate to PostgreSQL and edit the schemas. This was version 6.5... Since then, PostgreSQL has removed all the obstacles I had seen towards its use. For example, we now have ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN, and a host of other goodies to make it as easy to use as MySQL. Basically, with phppgadmin and a few other tools, PostgreSQL is just as easy to use as MySQL for the things that MySQL does. There are a few programming issues with PHP (most notably the fact that the result sets in PHP are not foreward only), but this is can be very useful. Of course, learning views, new data types, etc. that MySQL doesn't have makes the product harder to use but then MySQL can't do these things anyway. PostgreSQL IMO has a bit of an intimidating reputation due in part to its past lack of ease of use.... Best Wishes, Chris Travers > I know it sucks, but ease of use/simplicity goes a long way, often > further than performance, features and stability. > > Cheers, > > Chris > > -- > Christopher Murtagh > Enterprise Systems Administrator > ISR / Web Communications Group > McGill University > Montreal, Quebec > Canada > > Tel.: (514) 398-3122 > Fax: (514) 398-2017 > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > >
I am not sure if my previous email was sent, so I am trying again. From: "Casey Allen Shobe" <cshobe@softhome.net> > You can blind yourselves to the users, but do this for long enough, and you'll > discover you don't have any users, no matter how great your product might be. This is exactly my point. A truly open source project with large community involvement is fundamentally more responsive to user demands than a small centralized one that releases the project under an open source license. This hybrid approach sometimes works for a while but in the end, it does not really work so well. We have already seen Caldera OpenLinux fall because of such a strategy, and now, we are seeing GTK win many battles over QT for the same reason (despite the fact that many people see QT as superior to GTK). In fact the current success story I can see with the dual license strategy is that of Sleepycat Software's Berkeley Database. But then it is a niche product... The fundamental problem is that although the 2-track approach starts out with a larger, more vibrant community, it is harder to grow this community because community involvement in the entire process is more limited. > We live in a very strange world where people use what they see advertised the > most, or what the most of their friends have told them to use, instead of > doing actual research and making an educated decision. As a PostgreSQL user, > I've had to deal with at least 20-30 MySQL nazis telling me that *I'm* the > ignorant and accursed one, whereas I've met one guy who likes PostgreSQL. You know, this is the challenge at hand-- how to more successfully promote PostgreSQL. Although we should always be working to improve the database, I think that you are right that it is not the limiting factor in competing with MySQL. It is, however, when we are talking about competing with Oracle. I see the work ahead to be along the following lines: 1: The development of a community-maintained curriculum for PostgreSQL. Or at least a skill set definition that individuals can use in order to develop the skills necessary to be considered truely competent. 2: Third parties producing PostgreSQL distributions, including client libraries, additional PL's etc. They can then market their products and help take some of the heat off the main advocacy site. I know that there are already some closed-source distros out there from SRA, Command Prompt, etc. but we also need some open source ones as well. Maybe if I have the time. Or maybe some other consultants out there would like to take this on as well, or at least help... Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Chris Travers wrote: >Regarding the importance of PostgreSQL on Windows. > >For example, I am developing a hotel reservation management application >using Python and PostgreSQL (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openres). This >will only run on Linux and UNIX, so in order to get this to run on Windows, >I need to use either MySQL or Firebird. Or aI can require Cygwin. But that >is a bit over the top IMO, for a small hotel or B&B to consider, especially >because I want to run it if possible on existing equipment to keep >implimentation costs down. > > Does Microsoft's "Windows Services for Unix" run Postgresql ? I was a little surprised (but it makes sense) that Microsoft actually ships GNU based products. Another option is to use Linux under VMWARE and put PostgreSQL under it. However, I'd agree that a native port to windows would be best.
Sorry to jump into this late but I just had to commment... Quoting John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw@wardbrook.com>: > That's a fair point. > > I used to get the same debate from customers when they wanted M$SqlServer, > and I would always try to steer them towards Oracle (even if the starting > point DB was simple). For me this was a no brainer (having used both > products), but it sometimes took a lot of convincing even when Oracle > provided no OS lock in, reliability, scalability, good 3rd party toolsets, > and loads of consultants willing/able to support it. > > I'm not sure a comparison matrix is always helpful, because on paper > products can look comparable, but can be wildly different in real use. We > all drive cars, and they get you from A to B - in a paper feature > comparison they can be made to look fairly identical, but their real life > experience can be completely different. > > I guess my point was really to use an enterprise database like Oracle as a > yard stick to judge Postgres against. Although the newer versions of > Oracle are becoming bloatware, so you need to be careful! > > Compare MySQL to make a case for using Postgres over MySQL, sure. I > understand why you'd want and need to do that. > > It just seems that some people are becoming fixated on the number of > features implemented in either MySQL or Postgres instead of looking at the > sum total of all the parts. > > John Sidney-Woollett > Extremely good point. I actually stopped using paper comparisons because in the end its simply my word and experience against someone elses. If someone wants to go feature by feature, I have my PG table of contents and some other highlight points usually with me. In my experience, I've never had a problem deploying PG- maybe it is because I've been lucky to not get into "contests" like what I've hearing or maybe it is because most of the chatter I encounter is with Oracle, Sybase, Informix and the MS product. I do remember times when I have said things like, "I would not put my company's data on MySQL or MS-SQL" and things like, "my company's consulting app was developed on PostgreSQL and has been in use for <number inserted here> years". To the point- I don't make it solely about the product. That is only part of the successful formula for building an application. You have to "sell" yourself just as much as you have to sell the components of your solutions (if your clients care). Truth be told, I have turned down (i.e. walked away from or simply lost) projects based on the fact that I would NOT architect a solution with product which I did not feel comforatable deploying. Business-wise that might be bad thing for cash flow but in the long run, I don't think it is. Products are not successful unless they are used and if you politely refuse to use a particular product that, if nothing, else sends a strong message. The way I look at it is that I probably don't want to deal with a company that thinks that MySQL on windows is "good environment". Another technique that corporate folks use is get testimonials. Here is where I think we can shine. Imagine that you are in a meeting and someone doubts the viability of PG for whatever reason. I'd love to be able to say somethings like this, "I will get you a list of developers and the applications they have designed and YOU can pick who you want to get a reference from. Talk to as many people as you need to feel comforable". That would go a long way because the client could look for similar projects and because I am not picking the person that is giving the testimonial, the reference is less biased. Imagine that list containing hundreds of people from all over the world... *grin* I would certainly make myself available to any one in the community. AFAIK, there was a very short list on "success stories" on advocacy or techdocs but if the community thinks something like this would be useful then perhaps we should "market" those stories and their authors more formally. > > Randal L. Schwartz said: > >>>>>> "John" == John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw@wardbrook.com> writes: > > > > John> Why is everyone so concerned about how Postgres is > > John> product-placed compared to MySQL? Do you really care whether > > John> users prefer MySQL or Postgres? > > > > I care, because as a consultant, I'm called in to solve other people's > > problems when they most need help. And I'd rather solve problems > > in PostgreSQL than farking around with MySQL. > > > > I also am in an opportunity to be called in during the early phases of > > project assessment and design. There, I have an opportunity to talk > > about choice of database amongst other things. So, I need to be armed > > with facts about choices, more than just anecdotes. > > > > So this is a useful thread, for those areas of my business. Please > > continue. :) > > > > -- > > Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 > > 0095 > > <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> > > Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. > > See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl > > training! > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
> When I started with PostgreSQL and MySQL, MySQL was far easier
> to use
I started with MySQL and it WAS easier to use. It was easier because
the manual essentially reads:
-- we didn't implement anything complicated that's why
-- we are fast.
The only SQL customizations that MySQL has that I really miss in PostgreSQL
are the commands:
SHOW DATABASES;
SHOW TABLES;
DESC table;
That was ubber simple to do in MySQL. To this day, I have trouble with
that in PostgreSQL. I'm constantly doing:
psql> \?
psql> help;
ERROR: syntax error at or near "help" at character 1
psql> \h
...
* damnit, that's not it...*
psql> \?
psql> \d
* ok, now which flag do I use for tables vs functions..etc?*
I finally figure it out, I just end up forgetting again later. I still
have no clue how I'd find the same data without using psql. In MySQL
I can run those queries from PHP, PERL...etc. I know you can find that
data in system tables in PostgreSQL, but I don't wanna muck around with
all that. I just wanna do something as simple as MySQL.
Course, with that said... I've been building ALL my database apps with
PostgreSQL because it just simply works even if it doesn't always work
simple-ly.
As a plug, though ... I'm hooked on EMS PostgreSQL Manager 2.0. I'd have
to say that I'd not be as much of a PostgreSQL supporter if it weren't for
this client tool. I think EMS did the 'making it friendly to the developer'
that was sorely lacking in stock PostgreSQL client tools. Kudos.
Dante
----------
D. Dante Lorenso
dante@lorenso.com
D. Dante Lorenso (Sunday 28 December 2003 00:45) > The only SQL customizations that MySQL has that I really miss in PostgreSQL > are the commands: > > SHOW DATABASES; > SHOW TABLES; > DESC table; I agree here. Similarly, one of the things I miss most from DB2 is 'LIST TABLES'. I don't have any problem at all remembering \commands - the only problem is, as you described, that they are unique to psql. One of the things I miss most from MSSQL is the ability to use variables. Supposedly MySQL has this ability as well. I can come up with a very good reason if you want to hear it ;-). Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) http://rivyn.livejournal.com
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 02:42:20AM -0500, Casey Allen Shobe wrote: > D. Dante Lorenso (Sunday 28 December 2003 00:45) > > The only SQL customizations that MySQL has that I really miss in PostgreSQL > > are the commands: > > > > SHOW DATABASES; > > SHOW TABLES; > > DESC table; > > I agree here. Similarly, one of the things I miss most from DB2 is 'LIST > TABLES'. I don't have any problem at all remembering \commands - the only > problem is, as you described, that they are unique to psql. Yes, they do vary, there is no stardard. As you point out, DB2 and MySQL use different commands, as does probably every other database. There is no command that is going to work everywhere. > One of the things I miss most from MSSQL is the ability to use variables. > Supposedly MySQL has this ability as well. I can come up with a very good > reason if you want to hear it ;-). psql has variables, though I can't comment on how they compare to MSSQL's. -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > (... have gone from d-i being barely usable even by its developers > anywhere, to being about 20% done. Sweet. And the last 80% usually takes > 20% of the time, too, right?) -- Anthony Towns, debian-devel-announce
Attachment
Chris Travers wrote: > Regarding the importance of PostgreSQL on Windows. > > For example, I am developing a hotel reservation management application > using Python and PostgreSQL (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openres). This > will only run on Linux and UNIX, so in order to get this to run on Windows, > I need to use either MySQL or Firebird. Or aI can require Cygwin. But that > is a bit over the top IMO, for a small hotel or B&B to consider, especially > because I want to run it if possible on existing equipment to keep > implimentation costs down. Who cares about where the GUI must run? May you please explain me why the GUI must be on the same DB server? After all is better have the user's hand far away from the datas. Regards Gaetano Mendola
>As a plug, though ... I'm hooked on EMS PostgreSQL Manager 2.0. I'd have >to say that I'd not be as much of a PostgreSQL supporter if it weren't for >this client tool. I think EMS did the 'making it friendly to the >developer' >that was sorely lacking in stock PostgreSQL client tools. Kudos. This is a good point. Postgres the db is great. psql is fine but you have to know it well to get the most out of it, and you need to know which views and tables to query to make "sense" of your database (when you're away from your DB data models etc). For the newbie (myself included) this can be daunting and hard. Coupled with 'light' documentation, this presents a learning curve which is significant if you've never used an enterprise level db before, and you're floundering around with the difference between databases, schemas and users (etc). I have found pgAdmin III to be an absolute godsend - this product is brilliant. With it, I can see all databases, schemas, objects, and grants quickly and clearly. This one tool turned postgres into an absolute joy to use (in much the same way that TOAD makes Oracle a joy to use). I reckon that I use psql and pgAdmin III in equal proportion, but for me it's pgAdmin III that makes postgres compelling and blindingly good. John Sidney-Woollett
On Sunday 28 December 2003 11:15, D. Dante Lorenso wrote: > The only SQL customizations that MySQL has that I really miss in PostgreSQL > are the commands: > > SHOW DATABASES; \l > SHOW TABLES; \dt > DESC table; \d tablename > > That was ubber simple to do in MySQL. To this day, I have trouble with > that in PostgreSQL. I'm constantly doing: > > psql> \? > psql> help; > ERROR: syntax error at or near "help" at character 1 > psql> \h > ... > * damnit, that's not it...* > psql> \? > psql> \d > * ok, now which flag do I use for tables vs functions..etc?* \df for functions and \dt for tables. Problem is psql is unique though very powerful. I need to use oracle's sql-plus on HP-UX at times(Otherwise I crawl back to TOAD) and I don't think it is nowhere near to psql. or may be I play with postgresql more than oracle..:-) anyways > I finally figure it out, I just end up forgetting again later. I still > have no clue how I'd find the same data without using psql. In MySQL > I can run those queries from PHP, PERL...etc. I know you can find that > data in system tables in PostgreSQL, but I don't wanna muck around with > all that. I just wanna do something as simple as MySQL. Well, actually I would say it is great way of learning postgresql internals. There is a switch -E to psql which shows you queries sent to server for each command you provide. Problem with mysql is the approach is easy to start with but adding those command in your standard list of SQL commands falls out on standard compliance and maintainability. Another post on this thread mentioned postgresql should run against oracle. Sole reason postgresql v/s mysql debate should exist is to provide comparision in feasibility study. The hurdles you mentioned are true but that are just part of bit steeper learning curve of a standard way of doing things.. Shridhar
Martijn van Oosterhout (Sunday 28 December 2003 02:57) > Yes, they do vary, there is no stardard. As you point out, DB2 and MySQL > use different commands, as does probably every other database. There is no > command that is going to work everywhere. That's not what I meant. I mean that they *only* work in the psql client, not when using PostgreSQL via ODBC or another interface. > psql has variables, though I can't comment on how they compare to MSSQL's. Do you happen to have a link to documentation? If these aren't new, then I've just somehow overlooked it. I'd love to read further... Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) http://rivyn.livejournal.com
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 04:29:56AM -0500, Casey Allen Shobe wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout (Sunday 28 December 2003 02:57) > > Yes, they do vary, there is no stardard. As you point out, DB2 and MySQL > > use different commands, as does probably every other database. There is no > > command that is going to work everywhere. > > That's not what I meant. I mean that they *only* work in the psql client, not > when using PostgreSQL via ODBC or another interface. Hmm, I see. Obviously you could use the -E option to get the queries but it's not the same I grant you. SQL now defines an INFORMATION_SCHEMA, maybe that will bring some method to the madness. > > psql has variables, though I can't comment on how they compare to MSSQL's. > > Do you happen to have a link to documentation? If these aren't new, then I've > just somehow overlooked it. I'd love to read further... Interesting, I found them in psql's manpage under ADVANCED FEATURES - VARIABLES. Let's see if I can find it on the web... Here's a web version of the manpage. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/app-psql.html They're not in the backend though, though I'm not sure why you'd want that. Ofcourse, pl/pgsql has variables as do all the other languages. Hope this helps, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > (... have gone from d-i being barely usable even by its developers > anywhere, to being about 20% done. Sweet. And the last 80% usually takes > 20% of the time, too, right?) -- Anthony Towns, debian-devel-announce
Attachment
Hi Dante; From: "D. Dante Lorenso" <dante@lorenso.com> > I started with MySQL and it WAS easier to use. It was easier because > the manual essentially reads: > > -- we didn't implement anything complicated that's why > -- we are fast. > > The only SQL customizations that MySQL has that I really miss in PostgreSQL > are the commands: > > SHOW DATABASES; > SHOW TABLES; > DESC table; > With 7.4, PostgreSQL implements the standard information_schema so that one can essentially get all this information in a standard way with will presumably not be brokent too much in future versions. Prior to this release, you have to dig the information out of the system catelogs which would periodically change. Here are some examples (see the docs on the information schema ;-) SELECT table_name FROM information_schema.tables WHERE table_schema = 'public'; (lists all tables in the public schema) SELECT column_name, data_type FROM information_schema.columns WHERE table_name = 'pg_class'; (lists all columns from table pg_class, part of the system catelogs) One area where you may need to use the catalogs is in listing the databases in the cluster. To do this, use SELECT datname FROM pg_catalog.pg_database; > That was ubber simple to do in MySQL. To this day, I have trouble with > that in PostgreSQL. I'm constantly doing: > > psql> \? > psql> help; > ERROR: syntax error at or near "help" at character 1 > psql> \h > ... > * damnit, that's not it...* > psql> \? > psql> \d > * ok, now which flag do I use for tables vs functions..etc?* > Ok. Hope the tips above are helpful :-) > I finally figure it out, I just end up forgetting again later. I still > have no clue how I'd find the same data without using psql. In MySQL > I can run those queries from PHP, PERL...etc. I know you can find that > data in system tables in PostgreSQL, but I don't wanna muck around with > all that. I just wanna do something as simple as MySQL. > Another hint-- run psql -E to echo the queries to the screen, so that you can see how the information is being requested from the system catalogs. WARNING: Using the system catalogs is NOT supported across versions, as they tend to change from time to time. Use the information_schema instead wherever possible :-) > Course, with that said... I've been building ALL my database apps with > PostgreSQL because it just simply works even if it doesn't always work > simple-ly. > > As a plug, though ... I'm hooked on EMS PostgreSQL Manager 2.0. I'd have > to say that I'd not be as much of a PostgreSQL supporter if it weren't for > this client tool. I think EMS did the 'making it friendly to the developer' > that was sorely lacking in stock PostgreSQL client tools. Kudos. > > Dante > > ---------- > D. Dante Lorenso > dante@lorenso.com > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > >
On 28/12/2003 08:47 John Sidney-Woollett wrote: > I have found pgAdmin III to be an absolute godsend - this product is > brilliant. With it, I can see all databases, schemas, objects, and grants > quickly and clearly. This one tool turned postgres into an absolute joy > to > use (in much the same way that TOAD makes Oracle a joy to use). FWIW, TOAD as shipped with Fedora Core 1 has support for PostgreSQL :) -- Paul Thomas +------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ | Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller Business | | Computer Consultants | http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk | +------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
On 28/12/2003 01:57 Chris Travers wrote: > Regarding the importance of PostgreSQL on Windows. > > For example, I am developing a hotel reservation management application > using Python and PostgreSQL (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openres). > This > will only run on Linux and UNIX, so in order to get this to run on > Windows, > I need to use either MySQL or Firebird. Or aI can require Cygwin. But > that > is a bit over the top IMO, for a small hotel or B&B to consider, > especially > because I want to run it if possible on existing equipment to keep > implimentation costs down. I'm in a similar situation. My app is currently PG-only (although I _might_ be able to get it work with Firebird eventually). Currently I have to sell Linux to prospective clients in addition to my app. A native Windows version would make my life a bit easier. -- Paul Thomas +------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ | Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller Business | | Computer Consultants | http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk | +------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
The confusing license terms and conditions was one of the main reasons I appeared on this list some weeks ago, when I was considering a commercial venture using a JDBC client application, and couldn't untangle who needed licenses, how many and what for exactly. After a breif foray on #postgresql getting some newbie questions answered (like: can PG do everything that MySQL can) don't laugh, I was new to this remember. I was informed that PG was the tool for the job. After having a conversation about Views, Triggers, Stored Procedures, I decided to find out what these things were and joined this list. Never looked back......
But...
I was on #php a day or two ago, and mentioned PG to someone who was looking to solve a problem, he was quite interested, and asked what else PG could do. So I told him:
Me: It has views.
Him: What are they?
Me: It has Stored Procedures
Him: Are They Good? What Do They Do?
Me: It has Triggers.
Him: Will they help me?
This really rattled some peoples cages and I ended up defending PG against some really ill thought out attacks. Like:
MySQL User: But can PG deal with really complicated joins.
Me: In many cases the extra functionality of PG avoids the problems where really complicated joins would be needed in MySQL
MySQL User: But MySQL is fast, PG is not so fast.
Me: With PG you can move much of the functionality INTO the database using stored procedures, these stored procedures will run faster than interpreted PHP, therefore taking the load away from the webserver.
MySQL User: But my Apache/MySQL can handle squillions of hits/queries etc, PG probably couldn't. Do you know any sites that have a lot of traffic that use PG.
Me: Ummmm... try the .org registry, I'm sure they have a reasonable traffic load.
MySQL User: What project made you move to PG from MySQL
Me: The confusing licensing conditions when I wanted to write a commercial app based on MySQL.
This completely killed all traffic on the channel for a minute or two, while the cogs and gears whirred while people tried to Grock the concept of OSS MySQL costing money to use in an application.
After this lengthy defence and answering many questions without the slightest hesitation from me (and I'm new to PG), it made me realise why I was thinking about a PostgreSQL for MySQL users paper.
Just My 2 Cents
Tony
Chris Travers wrote:
But...
I was on #php a day or two ago, and mentioned PG to someone who was looking to solve a problem, he was quite interested, and asked what else PG could do. So I told him:
Me: It has views.
Him: What are they?
Me: It has Stored Procedures
Him: Are They Good? What Do They Do?
Me: It has Triggers.
Him: Will they help me?
This really rattled some peoples cages and I ended up defending PG against some really ill thought out attacks. Like:
MySQL User: But can PG deal with really complicated joins.
Me: In many cases the extra functionality of PG avoids the problems where really complicated joins would be needed in MySQL
MySQL User: But MySQL is fast, PG is not so fast.
Me: With PG you can move much of the functionality INTO the database using stored procedures, these stored procedures will run faster than interpreted PHP, therefore taking the load away from the webserver.
MySQL User: But my Apache/MySQL can handle squillions of hits/queries etc, PG probably couldn't. Do you know any sites that have a lot of traffic that use PG.
Me: Ummmm... try the .org registry, I'm sure they have a reasonable traffic load.
MySQL User: What project made you move to PG from MySQL
Me: The confusing licensing conditions when I wanted to write a commercial app based on MySQL.
This completely killed all traffic on the channel for a minute or two, while the cogs and gears whirred while people tried to Grock the concept of OSS MySQL costing money to use in an application.
After this lengthy defence and answering many questions without the slightest hesitation from me (and I'm new to PG), it made me realise why I was thinking about a PostgreSQL for MySQL users paper.
Just My 2 Cents
Tony
Chris Travers wrote:
I would be surprised if people selling proprietary apps would choose MySQL over PostgreSQL. Simply put my point is that software can be proprietary or open source, but projects which try to do both often end up losing out. I see MySQL as trying to do both. As much as I like the idea of open sourse software, at this time, there is still a substantial market for proprietary applications, and although it may fade over time (and has already done so considerably), it is a market that must open source software must co-exist with rather than simply attempting to assimilate or trying to belong to both communities.. This is also why I have argued that the GPL is intended for self-contained projects, of which MySQL is not, when you include the client libs.
The native windows port is certainly useful for me.... when I was developing for MySQL applications, I always ran a copy on my Windows laptop which started as a service, and was most useful. I used to Rapid Devel and prototype all of my DB apps this way.
Whilst I can (and do) run PG on my laptop, it not nearly as straight forward, and when wanting to share my work with others at a conference, trying to explain to them that they need to install Cygwin and IPC stuff and then download PG then compile it, etc, etc. They usually lose interest quickly.
When people want to try/play/prototype, installing Unix (many companies still don't have spare, non-essential unix/linux boxen kicking around to play with.
You don't understand the mindset behind the *yapping* MySQL users because you DO understand PostgreSQL, because you appear to judge other people by your own standards, instead of saying to yourself "There but for the Grace of PostgreSQL Go I"
Try to understand that not everyone is blessed by your knowledge of PG, or by your clarity of thought. It's easy to start throwing stones and rocks at people, but I'm sure that we could all be criticised on our choice of our software choices in one respect or another, since none of us are beyond reproach, and we can't all be experts at everything.
The only reason that I'm making these points is that a few weeks ago I thought the world was flat too, but a few people on this list took time to explain to me with fact based points that the world was in fact spherical and PG was a good thing.
How can you expect someone to understand why Nested Select staments are good, if they ndo ot necessarilly understand what they might be good for. In my experience, more than one time when investigating PG I had a list of features MySQL lacked blurted at me without even considering whether I understood what was being said. It may as well have been Charlie Brown's Teacher talking to me ("whah whah, whah whah")
Remember Windows/MySQL users are Windows users usually for three reasons: 1. They are blissfully ignorant of alternatives and don't know any better. 2. Don't have the ability to be productive with the alternatives, or don't have time to learn them (some people need to just use computers without making them their lives) 3. Use laptops/PCs provided by a work environment and must use Windows/MySQL because of Tools, Programs, Applications and don't have the option to change.
Zealotry is not good in any form, whether it's pro or anti MySQL, PG, Windows or whatever. Shouting about how another religion is bad doesn't make your point of view sound any less fanatical.
I'll get off my soapbox now. But I was eventually convinced that PG was good, and in turn I too have convinced a few MySQL users to take a closer look at PG, that's how a community grows. Not with venom spitting and name calling. I'm now a full card carrying member of PostgreSQL, but fortunately never happened across any PG zealots during my search.
Just my 2 cents. Flame away
Tony.
Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
Whilst I can (and do) run PG on my laptop, it not nearly as straight forward, and when wanting to share my work with others at a conference, trying to explain to them that they need to install Cygwin and IPC stuff and then download PG then compile it, etc, etc. They usually lose interest quickly.
When people want to try/play/prototype, installing Unix (many companies still don't have spare, non-essential unix/linux boxen kicking around to play with.
You don't understand the mindset behind the *yapping* MySQL users because you DO understand PostgreSQL, because you appear to judge other people by your own standards, instead of saying to yourself "There but for the Grace of PostgreSQL Go I"
Try to understand that not everyone is blessed by your knowledge of PG, or by your clarity of thought. It's easy to start throwing stones and rocks at people, but I'm sure that we could all be criticised on our choice of our software choices in one respect or another, since none of us are beyond reproach, and we can't all be experts at everything.
The only reason that I'm making these points is that a few weeks ago I thought the world was flat too, but a few people on this list took time to explain to me with fact based points that the world was in fact spherical and PG was a good thing.
How can you expect someone to understand why Nested Select staments are good, if they ndo ot necessarilly understand what they might be good for. In my experience, more than one time when investigating PG I had a list of features MySQL lacked blurted at me without even considering whether I understood what was being said. It may as well have been Charlie Brown's Teacher talking to me ("whah whah, whah whah")
Remember Windows/MySQL users are Windows users usually for three reasons: 1. They are blissfully ignorant of alternatives and don't know any better. 2. Don't have the ability to be productive with the alternatives, or don't have time to learn them (some people need to just use computers without making them their lives) 3. Use laptops/PCs provided by a work environment and must use Windows/MySQL because of Tools, Programs, Applications and don't have the option to change.
Zealotry is not good in any form, whether it's pro or anti MySQL, PG, Windows or whatever. Shouting about how another religion is bad doesn't make your point of view sound any less fanatical.
I'll get off my soapbox now. But I was eventually convinced that PG was good, and in turn I too have convinced a few MySQL users to take a closer look at PG, that's how a community grows. Not with venom spitting and name calling. I'm now a full card carrying member of PostgreSQL, but fortunately never happened across any PG zealots during my search.
Just my 2 cents. Flame away
Tony.
Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
Martin Marques (Friday 26 December 2003 14:11)Windows native port might be out in the next release (name it 7.5 or 8.0), with many other things there, and it should be out by fall of next year, which is much earlier then 2 years. :-)Great. But I really don't see how this makes the DBMS any better at all. So what if there's a native Windows port? Nobody that I've ever met or talked to uses MySQL on Windows anyways, and you can always use cygwin if you're really desperate. PostgreSQL is primarily an open-source database for open-source systems. If somebody wants to use MySQL just because they can run it on Windows, I say let them. What I *do* see is a whole bunch of MySQL users running around yapping about how great and fantastic and fast MySQL is and how crappy PostgreSQL is. I really don't understand them, and they're impossible to reason with. You can ask "Does MySQL support nested select statements? I use these every day", and they respond with "You can just use MySQL's proprietary SQL extensions to do the same thing another way; and MySQL is fast, too!". I think about the same of these people as I do of people who rave about the superiority of Windows, their chosen religion, or the country they live in - underinformed bigots. From all that I've read in terms of power, flexibility, and features, PostgreSQL is far ahead of MySQL. And I've yet to see even the slightest speed issue with a properly designed database schema. Maybe MySQL is faster with un-normalized tables, and that's why they like to say it's faster? I don't know, but I really don't care if that's the case. Vertu sæll,
Sadly a company will believe anything that a consultant they trust tells them. Otherwise there'd be little point in hiring a consultant to give them advice would there?
It seems rather illogical that you'd refuse to work with a company that had been given potentially sub-standard advice, based on what appears to be a theological view?
Either that or you have more consulting work than you know what to do with, that you can afford to base business decisions on an ideological basis.
If I chose not to work with companies that used Windows as servers (because IMHO, Windows is not a good server environment) my house would've been repossessed, and I'd have probably starved by now.
T.
Keith C. Perry wrote:
It seems rather illogical that you'd refuse to work with a company that had been given potentially sub-standard advice, based on what appears to be a theological view?
Either that or you have more consulting work than you know what to do with, that you can afford to base business decisions on an ideological basis.
If I chose not to work with companies that used Windows as servers (because IMHO, Windows is not a good server environment) my house would've been repossessed, and I'd have probably starved by now.
T.
Keith C. Perry wrote:
The way I look at it is that I probably don't want to deal with a company that thinks that MySQL on windows is "good environment".
On 28/12/2003 14:44 Tony wrote: > [snip] > This really rattled some peoples cages and I ended up defending PG > against some really ill thought out attacks. Like: > > MySQL User: But can PG deal with really complicated joins. > Me: In many cases the extra functionality of PG avoids the problems > where really complicated joins would be needed in MySQL > > MySQL User: But MySQL is fast, PG is not so fast. > Me: With PG you can move much of the functionality INTO the database > using stored procedures, these stored procedures will run faster than > interpreted PHP, therefore taking the load away from the webserver. > > MySQL User: But my Apache/MySQL can handle squillions of hits/queries > etc, PG probably couldn't. Do you know any sites that have a lot of > traffic that use PG. > Me: Ummmm... try the .org registry, I'm sure they have a reasonable > traffic load. See http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20001112.php3. Its a bit out of data wrt both dbs (MySQL 3.23.26 and PostgreSQL 7.1) but hopefully it will help dispel the FUD which MySQL AB have been spreading and living off for years. Also check the archives for this list and the performance list. And of course, the MySQL gotchas at http://sql-info.de/mysql is a must-read. > MySQL User: What project made you move to PG from MySQL > Me: The confusing licensing conditions when I wanted to write a > commercial app based on MySQL. RedHat seem to be sufficently uneasy about MySQLs licensing to not ship MySQL 4.x with Fedora. Instead they ship 3.23.58 whilst shipping PostgreSQL 7.3.4 :) For a commercial app, the issue of data integrity is paramount (hopefully it would be a non-commercial app too!) and I, for one, would not be happy to let my professional reputation be hostage to MySQL's gotchas. YMMV. > This completely killed all traffic on the channel for a minute or two, > while the cogs and gears whirred while people tried to Grock the concept > of OSS MySQL costing money to use in an application. > > After this lengthy defense and answering many questions without the > slightest hesitation from me (and I'm new to PG), it made me realise why > I was thinking about a PostgreSQL for MySQL users paper. Careful what you say - some people might think you're volunteering ;) -- Paul Thomas +------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ | Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller Business | | Computer Consultants | http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk | +------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
Tony (Sunday 28 December 2003 10:30) > The native windows port is certainly useful for me.... when I was > developing for MySQL applications, I always ran a copy on my Windows > laptop which started as a service, and was most useful. I used to Rapid > Devel and prototype all of my DB apps this way. In your shoes, I would probably tote along a compact linux machine running PostgreSQL, and a crossover cable to connect it to the laptop. > You don't understand the mindset behind the *yapping* MySQL users > because you DO understand PostgreSQL, because you appear to judge other > people by your own standards, instead of saying to yourself "There but > for the Grace of PostgreSQL Go I" Heh, no. The complaints I have about MySQL users are those of *ignorant* MySQL users. I have a low tolerance of ignorance about *anything*. I would be just as annoyed to hear somebody giving false excuses about PostgreSQL to a MySQL user. > Try to understand that not everyone is blessed by your knowledge of PG, > or by your clarity of thought. It's easy to start throwing stones and > rocks at people, but I'm sure that we could all be criticised on our > choice of our software choices in one respect or another, since none of > us are beyond reproach, and we can't all be experts at everything. I'm not trying to throw stones at all. I'm just saying that there's a lot of effort involved in making a Windows port that could be better spent working on general improvements, and that it is not a market that I think PostgreSQL needs to tackle. MySQL may run on Windows, but how many people actually choose MySQL over Microsoft SQL or some other commercial database? Not many. > How can you expect someone to understand why Nested Select staments are > good, if they ndo ot necessarilly understand what they might be good > for. Forgive me for not clarifying...but I do explain exactly what I would use them for, and the people who give me responses *know* why they're useful, because they come up with a perfectly good alternative to use in MySQL (which works, but isn't compliant to any standard but their own). Discussions like this result from MySQL users trying to convert me to their platform, not the other way around. I'm a believer in "use whatever you want". If you're underinformed about your decision, that's your problem. Don't come forcing it on me ;-). > 1. They are blissfully ignorant of alternatives and don't know any better. IMHO, these sorts of people don't need to be running PostgreSQL. If they've got something they're happy with, more power to them. If they want to take the blinders off and investigate alternatives, there's plenty of information out there. > 2. Don't have the ability to be productive with the alternatives or don't > have time to learn them (some people need to just use computers without > making them their lives) Then they oughtn't be using the alternatives. These sorts of people should use what they're used to. Why try to convert them to PostgreSQL from MySQL if they're happy with it and resistant to change and learning? > 3. Use laptops/PCs provided by a work environment and must use Windows/MySQL > because of Tools, Programs, Applications and don't have the option to > change. And again, if their software is dictated by management and management has given them MySQL, how is porting PostgreSQL to Windows going to help at all? If anything, these three examples sound like reasons not to bother porting, rather than encouragement to. > Zealotry is not good in any form, whether it's pro or anti MySQL, PG, > Windows or whatever. Shouting about how another religion is bad doesn't > make your point of view sound any less fanatical. I agree completely. You'll note that I haven't said anything bad about MySQL or Windows, even though I choose not to use either based on my own opinions. What I have said is that porting PostgreSQL to Windows is an unwise time investment, that open-source programs should focus on availability for open-source platforms, and that people don't often run open-source databases on Windows anyways (much more common is to see Access or Microsoft SQL). I have stated the reasons *I* find PostgreSQL to be a better alternative to MySQL, since that's the nature of this thread. I have *not* told you to go and switch to it. I think...you read my E-mail quite a bit differently than how I wrote it. Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) http://rivyn.livejournal.com
I've asked this before and I'll apologize now if there was a response but how does http://gborg.postgresql.org NOT fill this. Quoting Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com>: > Hi all; > > The problem with trying to maintain an image of unity is that PostgreSQL is > moving in a direction of being sort of like a kernel. In this sense, we > already are unified. But regarding new types, client libs, etc. then unity > is neither necessary nor desirable IMO. > > If that is something that some people see here as important, maybe they can > start their own PostgreSQL "distributions." Maybe we can link to them via > the PostgreSQL advocacy site :-) > > Best Wishes, > Chris Travers > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Cramer" <pg@fastcrypt.com> > To: "Robert Treat" <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> > Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>; > <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> > Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 5:31 AM > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > > > > Well, I'm not suggesting that we force them to do anything, just give > > the appearance of unity, this should be possible with tools available, > > no? > > > > Dave > > On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 16:57, Robert Treat wrote: > > > But your examples also lists things like interface libraries. For > > > postgresql to do that, we would have to pick specific interfaces > > > applications / libraries, then have them all centralize their > > > development/release process around the main distribution. If you can get > > > everyone to agree to this (and I recommend starting by picking the > > > official python interface), we can start down a unified path, but I > > > don't see it happening. > > > > > > Robert Treat > > > > > > On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 09:41, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > Regardless of the reasons, perception is reality. If we appear to be > > > > disheveled then we are. > > > > > > > > I would think that it should be possible to give the appearance of > unity > > > > without actually requiring a full time web-master? > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 12:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, > one > > > > > > doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as > > > > > > interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc. > > > > > > > > > > Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid webmaster > that > > > > > has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to > control > > > > > everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's > hard to > > > > > > > > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I > would > > > > > > > > expect it in the docs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like ... ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services > (http://www.hub.org) > > > > > > > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy > ICQ: 7615664 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(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 > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Martijn van Oosterhout (Sunday 28 December 2003 04:56) > Interesting, I found them in psql's manpage under ADVANCED FEATURES - > VARIABLES. Let's see if I can find it on the web... Here's a web version of > the manpage. Ahh, I have seen those...but they're specific to psql, and if memory serves me correct I wasn't able to use the variables within queries, either. I need something I can use over ODBC (within a single transaction, of course). These can sometimes solve problems that you can't seem to solve any other way, and other times can improve query response time *greatly* (say, by running a subquery once and assigning the result to a variable used 40 times in the final statement instead of running 40 subqueries). Take, for example, these query which I wrote in Transact-SQL for Microsoft SQL. Yes, this was a horribly-formed database and the requests complex, but it's something I had to deal with on a daily basis when I was still employed. This example shows a scenario where I don't think I could even write the query without the use of SQL variables: http://199.72.170.146/~sigthor/documents/example_query.txt This example shows a scenario where the variables are re-used. In this example, changing the original query to use variables instead reduced query execution time from 40 seconds to 2: http://199.72.170.146/~sigthor/documents/example_query2.txt (note for clarity that wherever [[blah]] appears in the SQL, this was replaced by an actual value with PHP before execution) So I guess my real question is, how can I address the same issues in PostgreSQL? Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) http://rivyn.livejournal.com
Chris Travers (Sunday 28 December 2003 01:24) > With 7.4, PostgreSQL implements the standard information_schema so that one > can essentially get all this information in a standard way with will > presumably not be brokent too much in future versions. Prior to this > release, you have to dig the information out of the system catelogs which > would periodically change. > > Here are some examples (see the docs on the information schema ;-) This rocks! Thank you for the information! > Another hint-- run psql -E to echo the queries to the screen, so that you > can see how the information is being requested from the system catalogs. This is what I've always relied on... > WARNING: Using the system catalogs is NOT supported across versions, as > they tend to change from time to time. Use the information_schema instead > wherever possible :-) And this is the problem I discovered the hard way ;-). Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) http://rivyn.livejournal.com
Quoting Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com>: > On Sunday 28 December 2003 11:15, D. Dante Lorenso wrote: > > The only SQL customizations that MySQL has that I really miss in > PostgreSQL > > are the commands: > > > > SHOW DATABASES; > > \l > > > SHOW TABLES; > > \dt > > > DESC table; > > \d tablename > > > > > That was ubber simple to do in MySQL. To this day, I have trouble with > > that in PostgreSQL. I'm constantly doing: > > > > psql> \? > > psql> help; > > ERROR: syntax error at or near "help" at character 1 > > psql> \h > > ... > > * damnit, that's not it...* > > psql> \? > > psql> \d > > * ok, now which flag do I use for tables vs functions..etc?* > > \df for functions and \dt for tables. > > Problem is psql is unique though very powerful. I need to use oracle's > sql-plus on HP-UX at times(Otherwise I crawl back to TOAD) and I don't think > > it is nowhere near to psql. > > or may be I play with postgresql more than oracle..:-) anyways > > > I finally figure it out, I just end up forgetting again later. I still > > have no clue how I'd find the same data without using psql. In MySQL > > I can run those queries from PHP, PERL...etc. I know you can find that > > data in system tables in PostgreSQL, but I don't wanna muck around with > > all that. I just wanna do something as simple as MySQL. > > Well, actually I would say it is great way of learning postgresql internals. > > There is a switch -E to psql which shows you queries sent to server for each > > command you provide. > > Problem with mysql is the approach is easy to start with but adding those > command in your standard list of SQL commands falls out on standard > compliance and maintainability. > > Another post on this thread mentioned postgresql should run against oracle. > Sole reason postgresql v/s mysql debate should exist is to provide > comparision in feasibility study. The hurdles you mentioned are true but that > > are just part of bit steeper learning curve of a standard way of doing > things.. > > Shridhar This is what I don't get. Why do people thing learn PG is going to be like learning MySQL in the first place? Because its OSS?? I certainly hope not. This is apples to oranges. I read someone say the documentation was "light" too. I'm not sure what that meant but I looked for at the 3 inch doubled side binded of my 7.3.2 docs- admin,user &,programmer- its as big as my J2EE binder. Not very scientific I know :) Seriously though, when people indicate PG is "hard", I hear, "if it was easy everone would be doing it". -$0.02 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Quoting Tony <tony@unihost.net>: > Sadly a company will believe anything that a consultant they trust tells > them. Otherwise there'd be little point in hiring a consultant to give > them advice would there? There are different levels of trust and in addition sometimes consultants are used for feasibility studies- "how would you do this?" If you're telling me you've never been in a situation where a client called you in because they want to implement a project with certain products or other specification because they have "done the research and want to proceed this way" then I'm very glad to hear that. No matter how much you are trusted as a consultant or technical advisor you are still just a guide. That means it is possible for your client is "wander off the path". I remember in the not so long ago days when people wanted to run certain hardware or software because to not do so would give the perception that you were not up to par. Sometimes what is used has nothing to do with using the best product for the job. That seems to be a sub-text of this thread. > It seems rather illogical that you'd refuse to work with a company that > had been given potentially sub-standard advice, based on what appears to > be a theological view? I'm sure the MySQL folks don't think they are sub-standard. A fair amount of my business is "clean up" so if someone said, "we have an app on MySQL that is not working for us" I would most definitely be interested. If someone said to me what DB do I use to build applications, I would say PG. If then someone says to me that "well we're a MySQL shop" then I would have to hear more because depending on what they want to do, I might not take on that project. There is nothing illogical or theological in that. > Either that or you have more consulting work than you know what to do > with, that you can afford to base business decisions on an ideological > basis. This really doesn't make sense. Are you telling me you are going to accept any an all work regardless of competency and confidence in that product? Would you really build a financial application on MySQL? We both know that we all have a certain ideology (read: religion) when it comes to our trade. To be clear, I'm not saying anything against someone who would use MySQL for a financial app. I'm just saying that I would not (or at least try very hard not to) involve myself in that project or any other project where I thought there was a bad design or implementation. When you are a smaller operation your reputation is going to weigh in a lot more than a larger company. I do not want my name to be tied to something sub-standard. If a consultant values his or her reputation I don't see how you can NOT consider what products you are willing to put your name on the line for. > If I chose not to work with companies that used Windows as servers > (because IMHO, Windows is not a good server environment) my house > would've been repossessed, and I'd have probably starved by now. > > T. 12 years ago calling myself a consultant one day meant putting in a netware 3.11 server for a bunch of PCs and MACs and pulling coax. Did I want to do that- I can't really say because at the time I had to eat. That for me is on the outer fringes of this thread. Few organzations are NOT using Windows somewhere, and an increasing number of organizations are starting understand OSS solutions. So both world are merging so it not about avoiding and one thing. Its about picking an choosing your battles. > > Keith C. Perry wrote: > > > The way I look at it is that I probably don't want to deal with a > >company that thinks that MySQL on windows is "good environment". > > > > > > > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Quoting Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>: > Chris Travers wrote: > > Regarding the importance of PostgreSQL on Windows. > > > > For example, I am developing a hotel reservation management application > > using Python and PostgreSQL (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openres). > This > > will only run on Linux and UNIX, so in order to get this to run on > Windows, > > I need to use either MySQL or Firebird. Or aI can require Cygwin. But > that > > is a bit over the top IMO, for a small hotel or B&B to consider, > especially > > because I want to run it if possible on existing equipment to keep > > implimentation costs down. > > Who cares about where the GUI must run? Chris and his client- > May you please explain me why the GUI must be on the same DB server? > After all is better have the user's hand far away from the datas. If its a small hotel or B&B I would think an addtional workstation might be cost prohibitive. Then again, that might simply be the way they want it. > > Regards > Gaetano Mendola > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 12:57:10PM -0500, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout (Sunday 28 December 2003 04:56)
> > Interesting, I found them in psql's manpage under ADVANCED FEATURES -
> > VARIABLES. Let's see if I can find it on the web... Here's a web version of
> > the manpage.
>
> Ahh, I have seen those...but they're specific to psql, and if memory serves me
> correct I wasn't able to use the variables within queries, either. I need
> something I can use over ODBC (within a single transaction, of course).
> These can sometimes solve problems that you can't seem to solve any other
> way, and other times can improve query response time *greatly* (say, by
> running a subquery once and assigning the result to a variable used 40 times
> in the final statement instead of running 40 subqueries).
Ah, I see what you mean. The psql ones can be used in queries, as long as
it's not inside a string (eg function body IIRC).
kleptog=# \set var 31
kleptog=# select :var;
?column?
----------
31
(1 row)
<examples>
> http://199.72.170.146/~sigthor/documents/example_query.txt
> http://199.72.170.146/~sigthor/documents/example_query2.txt
Aah, right. In those situations I tend to use temp tables myself. For
example, I have some programs which run a bit like:
select into temp month month from <rest of SQL statement>
select <really complicated SQL that references month.month>
Unfortunatly recent versions of Postgres tend to complain about missing
tables in FROM clause which is mildly irritating, since they're not really
tables from my point of view. Also, sometimes you need to run a quick
analyze over the table to give the planner the right hints.
Not ideal I'll grant you. In some ways some syntactic sugar would be nice.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> (... have gone from d-i being barely usable even by its developers
> anywhere, to being about 20% done. Sweet. And the last 80% usually takes
> 20% of the time, too, right?) -- Anthony Towns, debian-devel-announce
Attachment
I was thinking more along the lines of a company that said "Hey, we've got a core app on MySQL which is running like a bag of bolts, can you come and troubleshoot it for us." A company quite rightly would get a little edgy with someone saying sorry guys, it's new DB time. You'd want to go and work with them and help them to move in the right direction.
Keith C. Perry wrote:
Exactly!! I've been in a position where no matter how hard Linux has been rationalised as the right solution for a job, the management and board have been Windows Marketed, and refuse to go any other way. I've also been at companies where the entire global operation was a Novell shop looking at an upgrade bill well into the high 7 digits, when MS came along and said well give you the OSs for free if you migrate. You just can't factor in for situations like that. Although some companies, like one I have just worked for, have no technical in house ability at all and listened to a reputable consultant, who didn't necessarilly make the right decisions. The company certainly didn't have anyone within to checkup on the consultant with their own research. These tend to be smaller companies with smaller budgets, staff number in double digits with 7 figure turnovers, these smaller companies are typically my normal client. They've often been given advice which wasn't exactly long term advice. My name seems to be getting thrown around as a trouble shooter/fixer. I'd like the opportunity to get in on the ground floor of fresh projects, but sadly have not reached that reputable stage yet.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Apologies as that's not how I interpreted your email. My bad on that.
To a certian extend you're right although if I had something useful to offer to the project, I'd certainly want to be there when (inevitably) someone (MySQL) dropped the ball and make sure PG was right there to pick up the pieces. I certainly don't have a religion though, I always try to use the right tool for the job at hand. The bad thing about many advocates in the OS environment is that they have the Linux hammer, and everything they see tends to look like a nail. This is also true for MySQL and many other projects.
Agreed, but MySQL is not bad for everything, like all software it has a place in the great scheme of things. IMHO it's a perfect way to get your feet wet in the RDBMS world, it's the next step up from Paradox, Access, etc. How many key applications in a even a large company have you seen using Access, it's natural project sprawl.
Keith C. Perry wrote:
Quoting Tony <tony@unihost.net>:Sadly a company will believe anything that a consultant they trust tells them. Otherwise there'd be little point in hiring a consultant to give them advice would there?There are different levels of trust and in addition sometimes consultants are used for feasibility studies- "how would you do this?" If you're telling me you've never been in a situation where a client called you in because they want to implement a project with certain products or other specification because they have "done the research and want to proceed this way" then I'm very glad to hear that. No matter how much you are trusted as a consultant or technical advisor you are still just a guide. That means it is possible for your client is "wander off the path". I remember in the not so long ago days when people wanted to run certain hardware or software because to not do so would give the perception that you were not up to par. Sometimes what is used has nothing to do with using the best product for the job. That seems to be a sub-text of this thread.
Exactly!! I've been in a position where no matter how hard Linux has been rationalised as the right solution for a job, the management and board have been Windows Marketed, and refuse to go any other way. I've also been at companies where the entire global operation was a Novell shop looking at an upgrade bill well into the high 7 digits, when MS came along and said well give you the OSs for free if you migrate. You just can't factor in for situations like that. Although some companies, like one I have just worked for, have no technical in house ability at all and listened to a reputable consultant, who didn't necessarilly make the right decisions. The company certainly didn't have anyone within to checkup on the consultant with their own research. These tend to be smaller companies with smaller budgets, staff number in double digits with 7 figure turnovers, these smaller companies are typically my normal client. They've often been given advice which wasn't exactly long term advice. My name seems to be getting thrown around as a trouble shooter/fixer. I'd like the opportunity to get in on the ground floor of fresh projects, but sadly have not reached that reputable stage yet.
It seems rather illogical that you'd refuse to work with a company that had been given potentially sub-standard advice, based on what appears to be a theological view?I'm sure the MySQL folks don't think they are sub-standard. A fair amount of my business is "clean up" so if someone said, "we have an app on MySQL that is not working for us" I would most definitely be interested. If someone said to me what DB do I use to build applications, I would say PG. If then someone says tome that "well we're a MySQL shop" then I would have to hear more because depending on what they want to do, I might not take on that project. There is nothing illogical or theological in that.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Apologies as that's not how I interpreted your email. My bad on that.
Either that or you have more consulting work than you know what to do with, that you can afford to base business decisions on an ideological basis.This really doesn't make sense. Are you telling me you are going to accept any an all work regardless of competency and confidence in that product? Would you really build a financial application on MySQL? We both know that we all have a certain ideology (read: religion) when it comes to our trade. To be clear, I'm not saying anything against someone who would use MySQL for a financial app. I'm just saying that I would not (or at least try very hard not to) involve myself in that project or any other project where I thought there was a bad design or implementation.
To a certian extend you're right although if I had something useful to offer to the project, I'd certainly want to be there when (inevitably) someone (MySQL) dropped the ball and make sure PG was right there to pick up the pieces. I certainly don't have a religion though, I always try to use the right tool for the job at hand. The bad thing about many advocates in the OS environment is that they have the Linux hammer, and everything they see tends to look like a nail. This is also true for MySQL and many other projects.
When you are a smaller operation your reputation is going to weigh in a lot more than a larger company. I do not want my name to be tied to something sub-standard. If a consultant values his or her reputation I don't see how youcan NOT consider what products you are willing to put your name on the line for.
Agreed, but MySQL is not bad for everything, like all software it has a place in the great scheme of things. IMHO it's a perfect way to get your feet wet in the RDBMS world, it's the next step up from Paradox, Access, etc. How many key applications in a even a large company have you seen using Access, it's natural project sprawl.
If I chose not to work with companies that used Windows as servers (because IMHO, Windows is not a good server environment) my house would've been repossessed, and I'd have probably starved by now. T.12 years ago calling myself a consultant one day meant putting in a netware 3.11 server for a bunch of PCs and MACs and pulling coax. Did I want to do that- I can't really say because at the time I had to eat. That for me is on the outer fringes of this thread. Few organzations are NOT using Windows somewhere, and an increasing number of organizations are starting understand OSS solutions. So both world are merging so it not about avoiding and one thing. Its about picking an choosing your battles.
Keith C. Perry wrote:The way I look at it is that I probably don't want to deal with a company that thinks that MySQL on windows is "good environment".
Alas, it's one of the biggest shortcomings of email. My apologies for grasping the wrong end of the stick. All of your points are valid, but there is always room for a larger user community, especially in one that is almost entirely voluntary. It's OK to be aloof and niche, Debian has done just fine by it, in very many ways it far superior to Mandrake, Redhat, and many many others (I use it myself on all of my servers) but it doesn't excel in terms of accessability to the novice or even intermediate Linux users. Visit the #debian channel, and most of the people there will help you a great deal until they get bored with your newbieness and start sighing and telling you to RTFM. There is always a hardcore of advanced users however who will always help as far as they can, as long as they are Debian related Q's (I don't think anyone would be interested in "How do I use ftp" type Q's), a very similar story is true of the perl community (nothing personal Randall). I see very many parallels in all the advanced OS software and there are elements of this in PostgreSQL community, whilst the PG people in general are not quite as aloof as the Debian crowd, there are definite undertones of "Hey, If you're not good enough to appreciate us, then Tough Poopie to you!" This was very much how the Linux community was seen for the longest time, fortunately due to some vary hard advocacy work by some very dedicated people and talent programmers working hard on accessibility issues, Linux itself is now (mostly) far more accessible to many more people. I never expected to see so many people talking about Linux on the desktop so soon. The main point I'm trying to hit, is this how PostgreSQL community chooses to be viewed, or do they want to become a little more warm and fuzzy and have journalists cooing over PG. Either choice is a double edged sword. Those who can RTFM nearly always will, the others will probably use MySQL instead and get spoonfed by a more accessible piece of software that also runs on Windows. I'm trying to provoke thought rather than conflict here. Where does PG community see its place in the big picture? Regards T. PostgreSQL, Putting the .org into your Organization. ======== Casey Allen Shobe wrote: >Tony (Sunday 28 December 2003 10:30) > > > >I think...you read my E-mail quite a bit differently than how I wrote it. > >Vertu sæll, > > >
Keith C. Perry wrote: > Quoting Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>: >>May you please explain me why the GUI must be on the same DB server? >>After all is better have the user's hand far away from the datas. > > > If its a small hotel or B&B I would think an addtional workstation might be cost > prohibitive. Then again, that might simply be the way they want it. Cost prohibitive ? So you mean that put the DB and the GUI on the same Windows workstation is less expensive that leave the GUI on a windows system and the DB on a *nix box. Your client is aware of about much cost loose his datas ? I repeat again: "Don't put your DB host under the hand of the final user" don't mentioning the fact that the host is a windows host! Regards Gaetano Mendola
Keith, In principal it can, however lets say that I am a complete newbie to postgres and I want to use my favourite interface odbc, jdbc, .... etc. So I download the source tarball and build it, then I goto find my interface ... and it isn't there ( in all fairness jdbc is still there but that won't be true shortly ) The same is true for most tools; psql being the exception Now what do I do, I have to hunt around for the tools looking through a myriad of projects on gborg, go to the lists etc. Admittedly this deterrent won't stop a determined newbie from finding what they are after, but I'm sure there are some folk who would just assume that postgres is deficient in this area. Note some previous posts from others which demonstrates my point. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-12/msg01358.php This gentleman finally found pgadmin III which solved his problem. But I'm sure he had to look for it. Dave On Sun, 2003-12-28 at 13:00, Keith C. Perry wrote: > I've asked this before and I'll apologize now if there was a response but how > does http://gborg.postgresql.org NOT fill this. > > Quoting Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com>: > > > Hi all; > > > > The problem with trying to maintain an image of unity is that PostgreSQL is > > moving in a direction of being sort of like a kernel. In this sense, we > > already are unified. But regarding new types, client libs, etc. then unity > > is neither necessary nor desirable IMO. > > > > If that is something that some people see here as important, maybe they can > > start their own PostgreSQL "distributions." Maybe we can link to them via > > the PostgreSQL advocacy site :-) > > > > Best Wishes, > > Chris Travers > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dave Cramer" <pg@fastcrypt.com> > > To: "Robert Treat" <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> > > Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>; > > <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> > > Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 5:31 AM > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > > > > > > > Well, I'm not suggesting that we force them to do anything, just give > > > the appearance of unity, this should be possible with tools available, > > > no? > > > > > > Dave > > > On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 16:57, Robert Treat wrote: > > > > But your examples also lists things like interface libraries. For > > > > postgresql to do that, we would have to pick specific interfaces > > > > applications / libraries, then have them all centralize their > > > > development/release process around the main distribution. If you can get > > > > everyone to agree to this (and I recommend starting by picking the > > > > official python interface), we can start down a unified path, but I > > > > don't see it happening. > > > > > > > > Robert Treat > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 09:41, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > > Regardless of the reasons, perception is reality. If we appear to be > > > > > disheveled then we are. > > > > > > > > > > I would think that it should be possible to give the appearance of > > unity > > > > > without actually requiring a full time web-master? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 12:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified experience, > > one > > > > > > > doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such as > > > > > > > interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid webmaster > > that > > > > > > has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to > > control > > > > > > everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes it's > > hard to > > > > > > > > > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help but I > > would > > > > > > > > > expect it in the docs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like ... ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services > > (http://www.hub.org) > > > > > > > > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy > > ICQ: 7615664 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > >
Quoting Tony <tony@unihost.net>: > I was thinking more along the lines of a company that said "Hey, we've > got a core app on MySQL which is running like a bag of bolts, can you > come and troubleshoot it for us." A company quite rightly would get a > little edgy with someone saying sorry guys, it's new DB time. You'd > want to go and work with them and help them to move in the right direction. Ahh- that is definitely the type of thing we do. > Keith C. Perry wrote: > > >Quoting Tony <tony@unihost.net>: > > > > > > > >>Sadly a company will believe anything that a consultant they trust tells > >>them. Otherwise there'd be little point in hiring a consultant to give > >>them advice would there? > >> > >> > > > >There are different levels of trust and in addition sometimes consultants > are > >used for feasibility studies- "how would you do this?" If you're telling > me > >you've never been in a situation where a client called you in because they > want > >to implement a project with certain products or other specification because > they > >have "done the research and want to proceed this way" then I'm very glad to > hear > >that. No matter how much you are trusted as a consultant or technical > advisor > >you are still just a guide. That means it is possible for your client is > "wander > >off the path". I remember in the not so long ago days when people wanted to > run > >certain hardware or software because to not do so would give the perception > that > >you were not up to par. Sometimes what is used has nothing to do with using > the > >best product for the job. That seems to be a sub-text of this thread. > > > > > > Exactly!! I've been in a position where no matter how hard Linux has > been rationalised as the right solution for a job, the management and > board have been Windows Marketed, and refuse to go any other way. I've > also been at companies where the entire global operation was a Novell > shop looking at an upgrade bill well into the high 7 digits, when MS > came along and said well give you the OSs for free if you migrate. You > just can't factor in for situations like that. Although some companies, > like one I have just worked for, have no technical in house ability at > all and listened to a reputable consultant, who didn't necessarilly make > the right decisions. The company certainly didn't have anyone within to > checkup on the consultant with their own research. These tend to be > smaller companies with smaller budgets, staff number in double digits > with 7 figure turnovers, these smaller companies are typically my normal > client. They've often been given advice which wasn't exactly long term > advice. My name seems to be getting thrown around as a trouble > shooter/fixer. I'd like the opportunity to get in on the ground floor > of fresh projects, but sadly have not reached that reputable stage yet. *nod* I feel you there. But there is really nothing you can do about that though. I do a lot of clean ups and a number of ground up and migration products. I tell you this tho- same thing I used to tell my students when I was teaching- you **really** earn your rep on the clean up side of things. Ground up will do that but in this field its the maintanance that is more imporatant. If you can support what you've done or management the growth of your application your in trouble- like you said "long term". I've seen consultant names talked about for years because of how *bad* their design was too. If you've got a good rep now for clean-up, it only a matter of time before someone says, "well lets go with Tony 'cause he going to do it right the first time". > > > > > >>It seems rather illogical that you'd refuse to work with a company that > >>had been given potentially sub-standard advice, based on what appears to > >>be a theological view? > >> > >> > > > >I'm sure the MySQL folks don't think they are sub-standard. A fair amount > of my > >business is "clean up" so if someone said, "we have an app on MySQL that is > not > >working for us" I would most definitely be interested. If someone said to > me > >what DB do I use to build applications, I would say PG. If then someone > says to > > me that "well we're a MySQL shop" then I would have to hear more because > >depending on what they want to do, I might not take on that project. There > is > >nothing illogical or theological in that. > > > > > > Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Apologies as that's not how I > interpreted your email. My bad on that. No prob :) > > > > > >>Either that or you have more consulting work than you know what to do > >>with, that you can afford to base business decisions on an ideological > >>basis. > >> > >> > > > >This really doesn't make sense. Are you telling me you are going to accept > any > >an all work regardless of competency and confidence in that product? Would > you > >really build a financial application on MySQL? We both know that we all > have a > >certain ideology (read: religion) when it comes to our trade. To be clear, > I'm > >not saying anything against someone who would use MySQL for a financial app. > > >I'm just saying that I would not (or at least try very hard not to) involve > >myself in that project or any other project where I thought there was a bad > >design or implementation. > > > > > > To a certian extend you're right although if I had something useful to > offer to the project, I'd certainly want to be there when (inevitably) > someone (MySQL) dropped the ball and make sure PG was right there to > pick up the pieces. I certainly don't have a religion though, I always > try to use the right tool for the job at hand. The bad thing about many > advocates in the OS environment is that they have the Linux hammer, and > everything they see tends to look like a nail. This is also true for > MySQL and many other projects. Heheh, ok, I see your point. I gotta admit a good number of my Linux implementations (and OSS) in general have come out of the fact that other solutions have failed. Sometimes thats frustration because you feel like saying "I told you so" but in the end whats good for OS is good for OS regardless of when it happens. Damn that father time! *laff* > >When you are a smaller operation your reputation is going to weigh in a lot > more > >than a larger company. I do not want my name to be tied to something > >sub-standard. If a consultant values his or her reputation I don't see how > you > > can NOT consider what products you are willing to put your name on the line > for. > > > > > > Agreed, but MySQL is not bad for everything, like all software it has a > place in the great scheme of things. IMHO it's a perfect way to get your > feet wet in the RDBMS world, it's the next step up from Paradox, Access, > etc. How many key applications in a even a large company have you seen > using Access, it's natural project sprawl. Hehe, yea those infamous Access "Apps". Even though I use PG for everything, I know that MySQL is probably fine for most web site servering up what I would call "lightweight dynamic content". My experience has taught me that most organizations will grow fairly quickly to the point of needing something on the level with PG. So, you can do it now "properly" (with PG or something similar) or migrate it later (MySQL, Access, et al). If someone really wanted MySQL for something "light", I'm pretty sure I would not have a problem putting someone on that project. What I would not do is commit a consultant to something that has all the markings of being a bear to deploy and maintain. > > > > > >>If I chose not to work with companies that used Windows as servers > >>(because IMHO, Windows is not a good server environment) my house > >>would've been repossessed, and I'd have probably starved by now. > >> > >>T. > >> > >> > > >12 years ago calling myself a consultant one day meant putting in a netware > 3.11 > >server for a bunch of PCs and MACs and pulling coax. Did I want to do that- > I > >can't really say because at the time I had to eat. That for me is on the > outer > >fringes of this thread. Few organzations are NOT using Windows somewhere, > and > >an increasing number of organizations are starting understand OSS solutions. > So > >both world are merging so it not about avoiding and one thing. Its about > >picking an choosing your battles. > > > > > > > > > >>Keith C. Perry wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>The way I look at it is that I probably don't want to deal with a > >>>company that thinks that MySQL on windows is "good environment". > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Quoting Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>: > Keith, > > In principal it can, however lets say that I am a complete newbie to > postgres and I want to use my favourite interface odbc, jdbc, .... etc. > > So I download the source tarball and build it, then I goto find my > interface ... and it isn't there ( in all fairness jdbc is still there > but that won't be true shortly ) > > The same is true for most tools; psql being the exception > > Now what do I do, I have to hunt around for the tools looking through a > myriad of projects on gborg, go to the lists etc. The current README (well the 7.4 one) could do a better job of saying that gborg is where you should look for links for all things PG. I wouldn't say that you have to "hunt" for things though. > Admittedly this deterrent won't stop a determined newbie from finding > what they are after, but I'm sure there are some folk who would just > assume that postgres is deficient in this area. Note some previous posts > from others which demonstrates my point. > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-12/msg01358.php > > This gentleman finally found pgadmin III which solved his problem. But > I'm sure he had to look for it. Short of the README file with the source release and reorganizing the web site. I don't see what else could be done. I sincerely hope we're not going the path of MS and trying to make things "idiot proof". PostgreSQL is robust complex product and at a certain point I would think the powers that be would have to say enough is enough as it relates to trying to make things easy. On a side note though, I did try to search of "php interface" (something I know nothing about as it relates to PG) from the search link on the main website and I had to cancel it because it never returned anything after several minutes. That definitely would be frustrating to a new/prospective user. > > Dave > On Sun, 2003-12-28 at 13:00, Keith C. Perry wrote: > > I've asked this before and I'll apologize now if there was a response but > how > > does http://gborg.postgresql.org NOT fill this. > > > > Quoting Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com>: > > > > > Hi all; > > > > > > The problem with trying to maintain an image of unity is that PostgreSQL > is > > > moving in a direction of being sort of like a kernel. In this sense, we > > > already are unified. But regarding new types, client libs, etc. then > unity > > > is neither necessary nor desirable IMO. > > > > > > If that is something that some people see here as important, maybe they > can > > > start their own PostgreSQL "distributions." Maybe we can link to them > via > > > the PostgreSQL advocacy site :-) > > > > > > Best Wishes, > > > Chris Travers > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Dave Cramer" <pg@fastcrypt.com> > > > To: "Robert Treat" <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> > > > Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>; > > > <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> > > > Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 5:31 AM > > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > > > > > > > > > > Well, I'm not suggesting that we force them to do anything, just give > > > > the appearance of unity, this should be possible with tools available, > > > > no? > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 16:57, Robert Treat wrote: > > > > > But your examples also lists things like interface libraries. For > > > > > postgresql to do that, we would have to pick specific interfaces > > > > > applications / libraries, then have them all centralize their > > > > > development/release process around the main distribution. If you can > get > > > > > everyone to agree to this (and I recommend starting by picking the > > > > > official python interface), we can start down a unified path, but I > > > > > don't see it happening. > > > > > > > > > > Robert Treat > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 09:41, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > > > Regardless of the reasons, perception is reality. If we appear to > be > > > > > > disheveled then we are. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would think that it should be possible to give the appearance of > > > unity > > > > > > without actually requiring a full time web-master? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 12:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing that they do have over postgres is a unified > experience, > > > one > > > > > > > > doesn't have to go to n different sites to find things, such > as > > > > > > > > interface libraries, advocacy sites, development sites, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Course they don't ... cause they have one, full time, paid > webmaster > > > that > > > > > > > has nothing else on his plate ... one advantage to being able to > > > control > > > > > > > everything is the ability to keep everything centralized ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I will switch to PG anywhere soon but sometimes > it's > > > hard to > > > > > > > > > > find whatever information I need. Google is a great help > but I > > > would > > > > > > > > > > expect it in the docs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like ... ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services > > > (http://www.hub.org) > > > > > > > > > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy > > > ICQ: 7615664 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > > > > > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Keith C. Perry (Sunday 28 December 2003 17:55) > > This gentleman finally found pgadmin III which solved his problem. But > > I'm sure he had to look for it. > > Short of the README file with the source release and reorganizing the web > site. I don't see what else could be done. I sincerely hope we're not > going the path of MS and trying to make things "idiot proof". PostgreSQL > is robust complex product and at a certain point I would think the powers > that be would have to say enough is enough as it relates to trying to make > things easy. I think that a combined package of PostgreSQL and pgAdmin III should be available. Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) http://rivyn.livejournal.com
The example I gave was one where my app was designed to replace the old way of doing things (in this case excel). Replacing an Excel spreadsheet with a database-driven appliation is one area where you have no additional risk of information loss when you are running any RDBMS on the system. Also, here in Indonesia, most of these B&B's charge less than $30/night. Purchasing a new system (often $700 or more) is the equivalent of 23 room-nights (for a place which typically has fewer than 10 rooms). Used PC's are out of the question because usually they have hardware issues, and so the cost savings would be marginal. Please remember that the economic tradeoff of whether to buy an additional system varies quite a bit around the world. For this reason, I decided to build my application to be platform and database agnostic, supporting both Firebird and PostgreSQL. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
The other problem though is that I might want to SET the variable from a query result. Is there any way I can do that within psql? For example, something that would allow me to run a query, set the variable from the query result and then use that variable in another set of queries. This would drastically help on maintaining upgrade scripts for my db's. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Casey Allen Shobe wrote: > I think that a combined package of PostgreSQL and pgAdmin III should be > available. Just convince your distribution's postgresql package maintainer to add pgadmin iii to the "suggests/recommends" portion of the package management metadata. Alex
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 12:57:10 -0500, Casey Allen Shobe <cshobe@softhome.net> wrote: > > Ahh, I have seen those...but they're specific to psql, and if memory serves me > correct I wasn't able to use the variables within queries, either. I need > something I can use over ODBC (within a single transaction, of course). > These can sometimes solve problems that you can't seem to solve any other > way, and other times can improve query response time *greatly* (say, by > running a subquery once and assigning the result to a variable used 40 times > in the final statement instead of running 40 subqueries). You should be handle to this case by using the subselect query in the from clause and then doing a join to make the value available where needed.
On Sunday 28 December 2003 23:50, Keith C. Perry wrote: > Quoting Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com>: > > are just part of bit steeper learning curve of a standard way of doing > > things.. > This is what I don't get. Why do people thing learn PG is going to be like > learning MySQL in the first place? Because its OSS?? I certainly hope > not. This is apples to oranges. Certainly.. but people do that. Because copmparing unknown to a known idea is only way to learn it. If all I know is mysql, I am going to try and model postgresql to fit mysql point of view. Soon enough postgresql will grow out of it but that is a different story. > I read someone say the documentation was "light" too. I'm not sure what > that meant but I looked for at the 3 inch doubled side binded of my 7.3.2 > docs- admin,user &,programmer- its as big as my J2EE binder. That is right. but that fact remains that postgresql documentation is just sufficient. If you read the manual and follow it religously to comma and fullstop, it tells you everythings. But it certainly isn't a place where you can glance over it and get hang of it. Now how good practice of 'glance over and get hang of it' is, remains a topic of debate though..:-) Shridhar
Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com> writes:
> That is right. but that fact remains that postgresql documentation is just
> sufficient. If you read the manual and follow it religously to comma and
> fullstop, it tells you everythings. But it certainly isn't a place where you
> can glance over it and get hang of it.
This is surely true, and I've not seen anyone denying it. The people
who are doing development are, um, not strong at documentation (I
include myself here). What we need are some folks to step up and
improve the documentation --- and then maintain it in the face of future
changes. Any volunteers out there? This is an open-source project
after all, and that means "scratch your own itch" among other things...
regards, tom lane
On Monday 29 December 2003 12:47, Tom Lane wrote: > Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com> writes: > > That is right. but that fact remains that postgresql documentation is > > just sufficient. If you read the manual and follow it religously to comma > > and fullstop, it tells you everythings. But it certainly isn't a place > > where you can glance over it and get hang of it. > > This is surely true, and I've not seen anyone denying it. The people Well, for newbies to postgresql, let's state this fact upfront and not make them discover it..:-) > who are doing development are, um, not strong at documentation (I > include myself here). What we need are some folks to step up and > improve the documentation --- and then maintain it in the face of future > changes. Any volunteers out there? This is an open-source project > after all, and that means "scratch your own itch" among other things... If you ask me, let's not do that. Not at least on a grand scale. Isolated areas are OK on case by case basis.. I regualrly use development build documentation from developers.postgresql.org and I have seen the documentation in source code. In my view, postgresql developers do document it very clearly whenever required. If we dilute the documentation too much, that will make things simpler initially but that will simply create a maintainance nightmare as one has to maintain much larger amount of documentation. And once you get used to precise style of postgresql documentation, going back to anything else is a pain. ( MSDN.. I scream at nights.... but I digress). IMO documentation of postgresql is fine overall. What we need to do is. 1. State upfront that this is not handholding. It will make lots of things easier and offload work of expanding documents given limited human resources working on the project. A disclaimer is far easier to maintain than a manual..:-) And it will prepare anybody for upcoming hardships..:-) 2. Document and reuse it. Personally I would like to see responses on general and oter such list as URLs. If we answer it repeatedly, let's document it and point the people to them. Let them dig around 3-4 URLs around it and they will have islands of enlightenments. Over the period, these island will merge in a great landscape..:-) Just a thought.. Shridhar P.S. If somebody thinks I can not imagine how a newbie feels, I will agree. But looking back, dumbing down anything is not good in long term..an experience that is
Chris Travers wrote: > The example I gave was one where my app was designed to replace the old way > of doing things (in this case excel). Replacing an Excel spreadsheet with a > database-driven appliation is one area where you have no additional risk of > information loss when you are running any RDBMS on the system. > > Also, here in Indonesia, most of these B&B's charge less than $30/night. > Purchasing a new system (often $700 or more) is the equivalent of 23 > room-nights (for a place which typically has fewer than 10 rooms). Used > PC's are out of the question because usually they have hardware issues, and > so the cost savings would be marginal. > > Please remember that the economic tradeoff of whether to buy an additional > system varies quite a bit around the world. For this reason, I decided to > build my application to be platform and database agnostic, supporting both > Firebird and PostgreSQL. So one more reason to buy cheap hardware and avoid to pay M$ licenses or not ? Regards Gaetano Mendola
I agree with you (speaking as a newbie) I don't believe any dumbing down is necessary at all. I DO believe however that a decent introduction to the more important concepts (Triggers, Fkeys, Stored Proc, Views) that people from lesser systems (MySQL, Access) may not be familiar with. What they do, how they help, and why they are generally a good thing. This intro would probably fit either in the tutorial or in the User Guide.
Don't hold peoples hand for them, but at least provide them with the tools they need to make an educated decision.
T.
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
Don't hold peoples hand for them, but at least provide them with the tools they need to make an educated decision.
T.
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On Monday 29 December 2003 12:47, Tom Lane wrote:Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com> writes:That is right. but that fact remains that postgresql documentation is just sufficient. If you read the manual and follow it religously to comma and fullstop, it tells you everythings. But it certainly isn't a place where you can glance over it and get hang of it.This is surely true, and I've not seen anyone denying it. The peopleWell, for newbies to postgresql, let's state this fact upfront and not make them discover it..:-)who are doing development are, um, not strong at documentation (I include myself here). What we need are some folks to step up and improve the documentation --- and then maintain it in the face of future changes. Any volunteers out there? This is an open-source project after all, and that means "scratch your own itch" among other things...If you ask me, let's not do that. Not at least on a grand scale. Isolated areas are OK on case by case basis.. I regualrly use development build documentation from developers.postgresql.org and I have seen the documentation in source code. In my view, postgresql developers do document it very clearly whenever required. If we dilute the documentation too much, that will make things simpler initially but that will simply create a maintainance nightmare as one has to maintain much larger amount of documentation. And once you get used to precise style of postgresql documentation, going back to anything else is a pain. ( MSDN.. I scream at nights.... but I digress). IMO documentation of postgresql is fine overall. What we need to do is. 1. State upfront that this is not handholding. It will make lots of things easier and offload work of expanding documents given limited human resources working on the project. A disclaimer is far easier to maintain than a manual..:-) And it will prepare anybody for upcoming hardships..:-) 2. Document and reuse it. Personally I would like to see responses on general and oter such list as URLs. If we answer it repeatedly, let's document it and point the people to them. Let them dig around 3-4 URLs around it and they will have islands of enlightenments. Over the period, these island will merge in a great landscape..:-) Just a thought.. Shridhar P.S. If somebody thinks I can not imagine how a newbie feels, I will agree. But looking back, dumbing down anything is not good in long term..an experience that is ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
On Monday 29 December 2003 14:40, Tony wrote: > I agree with you (speaking as a newbie) I don't believe any dumbing down > is necessary at all. I DO believe however that a decent introduction to > the more important concepts (Triggers, Fkeys, Stored Proc, Views) that > people from lesser systems (MySQL, Access) may not be familiar with. > What they do, how they help, and why they are generally a good thing. > This intro would probably fit either in the tutorial or in the User Guide. > > Don't hold peoples hand for them, but at least provide them with the > tools they need to make an educated decision. For one thing, these thing do not belong to postgresql documentation. But I don't believe there is shortage of material on these topics on web and in print. However if you are refering to explaining these things, w.r.t. postgresql, I would be more than happy to churn out some extremely basic tutorials. Can you tell us what all you need? Rephrasing, if you know these(and some other) concpets by now, what all you missed while learning postgresql? It may sound like stupid question but unlearning things out of imagination is not easy...:-) Shridhar
By that logic then, we can probably ditch the PG Tutorial altogether and provide a quick ref card of PG commands and keywords, with a few pages on how PG is different should be plenty. The bisggest problem that I faced when moving to PG was the complete lack of any cetralised information source for this information. Sure there are tutorials on the web, first track them down, then convert their use to PG then collate them, then make some sense of it all. This is the kind of aloofness that I have mentioned previously, just because it doesn't belong, doesn't mean it's not needed, and it only needs to be written once. Although I know some of the concepts and I'm beginning to grock them, I'm still trying to collate enough to satisfy my needs. Assuming yo *do* want to grow the PG community and attract people from other systems, the easier the transition for them, the less likely they are to look elsewhere for something that appears easier. Easier doesn't always mean easier to use, sometimes it can mean easier to get to grips with. T. Shridhar Daithankar wrote: >For one thing, these thing do not belong to postgresql documentation. > >But I don't believe there is shortage of material on these topics on web and >in print. > >However if you are refering to explaining these things, w.r.t. postgresql, I >would be more than happy to churn out some extremely basic tutorials. > >Can you tell us what all you need? Rephrasing, if you know these(and some >other) concpets by now, what all you missed while learning postgresql? > >It may sound like stupid question but unlearning things out of imagination is >not easy...:-) > > Shridhar > > > >
On Monday 29 December 2003 15:25, Tony wrote: > By that logic then, we can probably ditch the PG Tutorial altogether and > provide a quick ref card of PG commands and keywords, with a few pages > on how PG is different should be plenty. > > The bisggest problem that I faced when moving to PG was the complete > lack of any cetralised information source for this information. Sure > there are tutorials on the web, first track them down, then convert > their use to PG then collate them, then make some sense of it all. > This is the kind of aloofness that I have mentioned previously, just > because it doesn't belong, doesn't mean it's not needed, and it only > needs to be written once. Although I know some of the concepts and I'm > beginning to grock them, I'm still trying to collate enough to satisfy > my needs. > > Assuming yo *do* want to grow the PG community and attract people from > other systems, the easier the transition for them, the less likely they > are to look elsewhere for something that appears easier. Easier > doesn't always mean easier to use, sometimes it can mean easier to get > to grips with. *Sigh*.. You just read my first remark which you could have bypassed but anyways.. What do you think of offer I made? I was slightly disappointed to see that you missed it.. I am not removing my original message. Please read and let me know what do you think.. > > Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > >For one thing, these thing do not belong to postgresql documentation. > > > >But I don't believe there is shortage of material on these topics on web > > and in print. > > > >However if you are refering to explaining these things, w.r.t. postgresql, > > I would be more than happy to churn out some extremely basic tutorials. > > > >Can you tell us what all you need? Rephrasing, if you know these(and some > >other) concpets by now, what all you missed while learning postgresql? > > > >It may sound like stupid question but unlearning things out of imagination > > is not easy...:-) Shridhar
I agree with most of this sentiment. Even knowing SQL and RDBMs reasonably well, there is still a significant effort involved in moving from another RDBMS (in my case Oracle) to postgres. The postgres docs provide much all the detail (in a very concise form). The hard part is putting all the different pieces together to solve some problem. In fact, this is where the postgres users list is so good, because the support and feedback from it is excellent. Contrast this page from the docs (for the update statement), http://www.postgres.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-update.html with Oracle's (for 8.1.7) http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/A87860_01/doc/server.817/a85397/state27a.htm#2067717 Some might feel that much of the information is redundant or bloat. I disagree - you get a feel for what is possible as well as links to other commands, subtopics, and concept explanations. Someone commented that maintaining docs (of this sort) would be too hard - I disagree. Many of the commands are *mostly* implementation agnostic, and the initial docs would require siginificant effort to build, but should only require moderate maintenance as features are added or modified. Just my two cents (again). John Sidney-Woollett ps And yes, I would be willing to help once my current project is complete... Tony said: > By that logic then, we can probably ditch the PG Tutorial altogether and > provide a quick ref card of PG commands and keywords, with a few pages > on how PG is different should be plenty. > > The bisggest problem that I faced when moving to PG was the complete > lack of any cetralised information source for this information. Sure > there are tutorials on the web, first track them down, then convert > their use to PG then collate them, then make some sense of it all. > This is the kind of aloofness that I have mentioned previously, just > because it doesn't belong, doesn't mean it's not needed, and it only > needs to be written once. Although I know some of the concepts and I'm > beginning to grock them, I'm still trying to collate enough to satisfy > my needs. > > Assuming yo *do* want to grow the PG community and attract people from > other systems, the easier the transition for them, the less likely they > are to look elsewhere for something that appears easier. Easier > doesn't always mean easier to use, sometimes it can mean easier to get > to grips with. > > T. > > Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > >>For one thing, these thing do not belong to postgresql documentation. >> >>But I don't believe there is shortage of material on these topics on web >> and >>in print. >> >>However if you are refering to explaining these things, w.r.t. >> postgresql, I >>would be more than happy to churn out some extremely basic tutorials. >> >>Can you tell us what all you need? Rephrasing, if you know these(and some >>other) concpets by now, what all you missed while learning postgresql? >> >>It may sound like stupid question but unlearning things out of >> imagination is >>not easy...:-) >> >> Shridhar >> >> >> >> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >
Apologies, try this link instead: http://miami.int.gu.edu.au/dbs/7016/a85397/state27a.htm#2067717 The previous one required you to be signed with technet - the one above should be viewable by all. John John Sidney-Woollett said: > I agree with most of this sentiment. Even knowing SQL and RDBMs reasonably > well, there is still a significant effort involved in moving from another > RDBMS (in my case Oracle) to postgres. > > The postgres docs provide much all the detail (in a very concise form). > The hard part is putting all the different pieces together to solve some > problem. In fact, this is where the postgres users list is so good, > because the support and feedback from it is excellent. > > Contrast this page from the docs (for the update statement), > http://www.postgres.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-update.html with > Oracle's (for 8.1.7) > http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/A87860_01/doc/server.817/a85397/state27a.htm#2067717 > > Some might feel that much of the information is redundant or bloat. I > disagree - you get a feel for what is possible as well as links to other > commands, subtopics, and concept explanations. > > Someone commented that maintaining docs (of this sort) would be too hard - > I disagree. Many of the commands are *mostly* implementation agnostic, and > the initial docs would require siginificant effort to build, but should > only require moderate maintenance as features are added or modified. > > Just my two cents (again). > > John Sidney-Woollett > > ps And yes, I would be willing to help once my current project is > complete... > > Tony said: >> By that logic then, we can probably ditch the PG Tutorial altogether and >> provide a quick ref card of PG commands and keywords, with a few pages >> on how PG is different should be plenty. >> >> The bisggest problem that I faced when moving to PG was the complete >> lack of any cetralised information source for this information. Sure >> there are tutorials on the web, first track them down, then convert >> their use to PG then collate them, then make some sense of it all. >> This is the kind of aloofness that I have mentioned previously, just >> because it doesn't belong, doesn't mean it's not needed, and it only >> needs to be written once. Although I know some of the concepts and I'm >> beginning to grock them, I'm still trying to collate enough to satisfy >> my needs. >> >> Assuming yo *do* want to grow the PG community and attract people from >> other systems, the easier the transition for them, the less likely they >> are to look elsewhere for something that appears easier. Easier >> doesn't always mean easier to use, sometimes it can mean easier to get >> to grips with. >> >> T. >> >> Shridhar Daithankar wrote: >> >>>For one thing, these thing do not belong to postgresql documentation. >>> >>>But I don't believe there is shortage of material on these topics on web >>> and >>>in print. >>> >>>However if you are refering to explaining these things, w.r.t. >>> postgresql, I >>>would be more than happy to churn out some extremely basic tutorials. >>> >>>Can you tell us what all you need? Rephrasing, if you know these(and >>> some >>>other) concpets by now, what all you missed while learning postgresql? >>> >>>It may sound like stupid question but unlearning things out of >>> imagination is >>>not easy...:-) >>> >>> Shridhar >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >> > > > ---------------------------(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 >
Hi all; I am working on an outline for topics that I think should have detailed discussion and/or tutorial items. Unfortunately my laptop is in the shop (bad motherboard) but when it comes back, I will post it. I think that Shrindhar is right-- these things do not belong in the main documentation which should be complete, technical, and accessible. But instead, I think that we need a separate document which teaches someone how to use an enterprise RDBMS, and particularly PostgreSQL. Learning these topics piecemeal is not very helpful, IMO :-( I hope that the progression will be: Outline -> disjointed tutorials -> integrated mega-tutorial -> larger curriculum set. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com> To: "Tony" <tony@unihost.net> Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>; <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > On Monday 29 December 2003 15:25, Tony wrote: > > By that logic then, we can probably ditch the PG Tutorial altogether and > > provide a quick ref card of PG commands and keywords, with a few pages > > on how PG is different should be plenty. > > > > The bisggest problem that I faced when moving to PG was the complete > > lack of any cetralised information source for this information. Sure > > there are tutorials on the web, first track them down, then convert > > their use to PG then collate them, then make some sense of it all. > > This is the kind of aloofness that I have mentioned previously, just > > because it doesn't belong, doesn't mean it's not needed, and it only > > needs to be written once. Although I know some of the concepts and I'm > > beginning to grock them, I'm still trying to collate enough to satisfy > > my needs. > > > > Assuming yo *do* want to grow the PG community and attract people from > > other systems, the easier the transition for them, the less likely they > > are to look elsewhere for something that appears easier. Easier > > doesn't always mean easier to use, sometimes it can mean easier to get > > to grips with. > > *Sigh*.. You just read my first remark which you could have bypassed but > anyways.. > > What do you think of offer I made? I was slightly disappointed to see that you > missed it.. > > I am not removing my original message. Please read and let me know what do you > think.. > > > > > Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > > >For one thing, these thing do not belong to postgresql documentation. > > > > > >But I don't believe there is shortage of material on these topics on web > > > and in print. > > > > > >However if you are refering to explaining these things, w.r.t. postgresql, > > > I would be more than happy to churn out some extremely basic tutorials. > > > > > >Can you tell us what all you need? Rephrasing, if you know these(and some > > >other) concpets by now, what all you missed while learning postgresql? > > > > > >It may sound like stupid question but unlearning things out of imagination > > > is not easy...:-) > > Shridhar > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html > >
Alex Satrapa (Sunday 28 December 2003 22:16) > Just convince your distribution's My what? I don't use no stinkin' distribution :). > postgresql package maintainer That would be postgresql.org, I know not of binary packages. > "suggests/recommends" portion of the package management metadata. Tar does not provide such metadata, and a suggestion is hardly the same as an inclusion. I'm just saying that it would be nice to include both CLI and GUI interfaces, not to mention things like ODBC, as an alternative to the "minimalist" download. I got a private reply suggesting putting together a "distribution" of PostgreSQL including extras, so that may be a possible route as well. Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) http://rivyn.livejournal.com
> I'm in a similar situation. My app is currently PG-only (although I
> _might_ be able to get it work with Firebird eventually). Currently I have
> to sell Linux to prospective clients in addition to my app. A native
> Windows version would make my life a bit easier.
Same here.
Our "clients" use legacy medical office software that 99% runs
on Windows. We offer add-ons (tailored mini-versions of our
main application :-) and thus get OSS (Python, PostgreSQL,
wxWindows, sometimes Linux itself) into their offices and onto
their networks. Most of the time the main difficulty is to figure
out how to offer PostgreSQL in their environment (yes, we know
about CygWin).
("clients" because we don't do business as in selling stuff)
Karsten Hilbert, MD
www.gnumed.org
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
A documentation system like the one over at http://php.net, would be fantastic for Postgresql. There could be lookups based on SQL commands, Functions, and Sitewide Searches. This alone would go a long way to expose PHP to "the masses". In terms of using MySQL or Postgresql, lets all face it, most data storage work could be easily and efficiently handled by text files, since there needs to be just infrequent inserts and updates, and mostly reads. The majority of interfaces exposed on the web follow this paradigm, and include: * Content management * Catalogs * Shopping cart stuff * User management Yes, our powerful and easy to use PG can do all of that too, but SQLite, Sleepycat DBM files and MySQL can do it as well. There are going to be even more migrations for Oracle to MySQL than from Oracle to PG, because so many of those Oracle installations were overkill in the first place. Our place is in that hoary back end that runs the world, the un-sexy part of any organization that no one outside of the Development team, or System Administrators know about. Getting mindshare is a different problem. That requires PG to have a full time effective press person. This press person would need to be in touch with the press constantly to tell them things like: * PG is a great back for windows clients using ODBC/MS Access/Excel * PG is a "real" database comparable to Oracle * PG costs nothing * Free support is fabulous, and paid support is available * Development is constant In the end, I believe that PG needs to move into an organizational structure so that its considerable assets can be fully realized, its wonderful developers may be fully compensated, and commercial users (our bread and butter), can have an official place to help sponsor features of the system and so on. All this is more than a website. Someone posted pictures of the PG booth at a show recently. It was nice, but there was this one sad guy shrouded in darkness -- I felt depressed, because that's how PG advocacy felt. Warm regards, Ericson Smith DBA/Developer +-----------------------+----------------------------+ | http://www.did-it.com | "When I'm paid, I always | | eric@did-it.com | follow the job through. | | 516-255-0500 | You know that." -Angel Eyes| +-----------------------+----------------------------+ Karsten Hilbert wrote: >>I'm in a similar situation. My app is currently PG-only (although I >>_might_ be able to get it work with Firebird eventually). Currently I have >>to sell Linux to prospective clients in addition to my app. A native >>Windows version would make my life a bit easier. >> >> >Same here. > >Our "clients" use legacy medical office software that 99% runs >on Windows. We offer add-ons (tailored mini-versions of our >main application :-) and thus get OSS (Python, PostgreSQL, >wxWindows, sometimes Linux itself) into their offices and onto >their networks. Most of the time the main difficulty is to figure >out how to offer PostgreSQL in their environment (yes, we know >about CygWin). > >("clients" because we don't do business as in selling stuff) > >Karsten Hilbert, MD > >www.gnumed.org > >
Attachment
This has been an interesting thread, with lots of well considered contributions. The consensus seems to be "PostgreSQL is plenty good enough and more, we just need more people to know it, and an easier learning path". What bothers me a little here is an apparent lack of awareness of the work of the Advocacy Group. They have been organized for a little over one full release cycle, but have already begun to achieve some impressive things. The release of version 7.4 saw a well prepared press release, which was subsequently picked up by journalists and featured (often lifted word for word) in articles in a variety of IT industry publications around the world. The effect was to get our marketing material in front of the eyes of many readers, without them having to go looking for it at all. When did that happen before? I cite that as just one example of what can be achieved by an organized and co-ordinated approach, which is just what the Advocacy Group is working on. The scope for more development along these lines is huge, all that is needed is the passage of time, and hopefully more contributions from more people. I recommend to all those whose interest was caught by this thread to check out the pgsql-advocacy list, if you have not already done so, and think about what you might be able to add. In answer to the obvious question, I have been lurking on that list for a while, and intend to make a contribution where I feel fitted to do so. Maybe we need to invent some new solutions, but for advocacy at least, we already have one. --- Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> wrote: > A documentation system like the one over at > http://php.net, would be > fantastic for Postgresql. There could be lookups > based on SQL commands, > Functions, and Sitewide Searches. This alone would > go a long way to > expose PHP to "the masses". > > In terms of using MySQL or Postgresql, lets all face > it, most data > storage work could be easily and efficiently handled > by text files, > since there needs to be just infrequent inserts and > updates, and mostly > reads. The majority of interfaces exposed on the web > follow this > paradigm, and include: > * Content management > * Catalogs > * Shopping cart stuff > * User management > > Yes, our powerful and easy to use PG can do all of > that too, but SQLite, > Sleepycat DBM files and MySQL can do it as well. > There are going to be > even more migrations for Oracle to MySQL than from > Oracle to PG, because > so many of those Oracle installations were overkill > in the first place. > Our place is in that hoary back end that runs the > world, the un-sexy > part of any organization that no one outside of the > Development team, or > System Administrators know about. > > Getting mindshare is a different problem. That > requires PG to have a > full time effective press person. This press person > would need to be in > touch with the press constantly to tell them things > like: > * PG is a great back for windows clients using > ODBC/MS Access/Excel > * PG is a "real" database comparable to Oracle > * PG costs nothing > * Free support is fabulous, and paid support is > available > * Development is constant > > In the end, I believe that PG needs to move into an > organizational > structure so that its considerable assets can be > fully realized, its > wonderful developers may be fully compensated, and > commercial users (our > bread and butter), can have an official place to > help sponsor features > of the system and so on. All this is more than a > website. Someone posted > pictures of the PG booth at a show recently. It was > nice, but there was > this one sad guy shrouded in darkness -- I felt > depressed, because > that's how PG advocacy felt. > > Warm regards, > Ericson Smith > DBA/Developer > +-----------------------+----------------------------+ > | http://www.did-it.com | "When I'm paid, I always > | > | eric@did-it.com | follow the job through. > | > | 516-255-0500 | You know that." -Angel > Eyes| > +-----------------------+----------------------------+ > > > > > Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > >>I'm in a similar situation. My app is currently > PG-only (although I > >>_might_ be able to get it work with Firebird > eventually). Currently I have > >>to sell Linux to prospective clients in addition > to my app. A native > >>Windows version would make my life a bit easier. > >> > >> > >Same here. > > > >Our "clients" use legacy medical office software > that 99% runs > >on Windows. We offer add-ons (tailored > mini-versions of our > >main application :-) and thus get OSS (Python, > PostgreSQL, > >wxWindows, sometimes Linux itself) into their > offices and onto > >their networks. Most of the time the main > difficulty is to figure > >out how to offer PostgreSQL in their environment > (yes, we know > >about CygWin). > > > >("clients" because we don't do business as in > selling stuff) > > > >Karsten Hilbert, MD > > > >www.gnumed.org > > > > > > begin:vcard > fn:Ericson Smith > n:Smith;Ericson > org:Did-it.com;Programming > adr:#304;;55 Maple Avenue;Rockville > Center;NY;11570;USA > email;internet:eric@did-it.com > title:Web Developer > tel;work:516-255-0500 > tel;cell:646-483-3420 > note:Nothing special! > x-mozilla-html:FALSE > url:http://www.did-it.com > version:2.1 > end:vcard > > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
Chris Travers (Sunday 28 December 2003 20:56) > Also, here in Indonesia, most of these B&B's charge less than $30/night. > Purchasing a new system (often $700 or more) is the equivalent of 23 > room-nights (for a place which typically has fewer than 10 rooms). Used > PC's are out of the question because usually they have hardware issues, and > so the cost savings would be marginal. Hmm...good points that I had not considered...I'm used to being here in the US, where I can go buy a brand new low-end Celeron server for under $200. Not the greatest piece of hardware, but cheap :). Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) http://rivyn.livejournal.com
Tony <tony@unihost.net> writes:
> ... I DO believe however that a decent introduction to
> the more important concepts (Triggers, Fkeys, Stored Proc, Views) that
> people from lesser systems (MySQL, Access) may not be familiar with.
> What they do, how they help, and why they are generally a good thing.
> This intro would probably fit either in the tutorial or in the User Guide.
Many of these subjects already *are* covered in the Tutorial. Just
looking in the 7.4 table of contents, I see
3. Advanced Features
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Views
3.3. Foreign Keys
3.4. Transactions
3.5. Inheritance
3.6. Conclusion
The discussions are skimpy and could use fleshed out a little, no doubt.
(Anyone who wants to contribute material is surely welcome to.)
BTW, there is a separate mailing list pgsql-docs for those who want to
work on documentation.
regards, tom lane
Jeff, I agree; we have an apparent lack of awareness of many things. IMO this is more indicative of a lack of a unified presence than anything else. part of the project is on gborg, part of the project is on advocacy, .... etc. How would a newbie know to go look for advocacy.postgresql.org ?. Dave On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 10:18, Jeff Eckermann wrote: > This has been an interesting thread, with lots of well > considered contributions. The consensus seems to be > "PostgreSQL is plenty good enough and more, we just > need more people to know it, and an easier learning > path". > > What bothers me a little here is an apparent lack of > awareness of the work of the Advocacy Group. They > have been organized for a little over one full release > cycle, but have already begun to achieve some > impressive things. The release of version 7.4 saw a > well prepared press release, which was subsequently > picked up by journalists and featured (often lifted > word for word) in articles in a variety of IT industry > publications around the world. The effect was to get > our marketing material in front of the eyes of many > readers, without them having to go looking for it at > all. When did that happen before? > > I cite that as just one example of what can be > achieved by an organized and co-ordinated approach, > which is just what the Advocacy Group is working on. > The scope for more development along these lines is > huge, all that is needed is the passage of time, and > hopefully more contributions from more people. I > recommend to all those whose interest was caught by > this thread to check out the pgsql-advocacy list, if > you have not already done so, and think about what you > might be able to add. In answer to the obvious > question, I have been lurking on that list for a > while, and intend to make a contribution where I feel > fitted to do so. > > Maybe we need to invent some new solutions, but for > advocacy at least, we already have one. > > --- Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> wrote: > > A documentation system like the one over at > > http://php.net, would be > > fantastic for Postgresql. There could be lookups > > based on SQL commands, > > Functions, and Sitewide Searches. This alone would > > go a long way to > > expose PHP to "the masses". > > > > In terms of using MySQL or Postgresql, lets all face > > it, most data > > storage work could be easily and efficiently handled > > by text files, > > since there needs to be just infrequent inserts and > > updates, and mostly > > reads. The majority of interfaces exposed on the web > > follow this > > paradigm, and include: > > * Content management > > * Catalogs > > * Shopping cart stuff > > * User management > > > > Yes, our powerful and easy to use PG can do all of > > that too, but SQLite, > > Sleepycat DBM files and MySQL can do it as well. > > There are going to be > > even more migrations for Oracle to MySQL than from > > Oracle to PG, because > > so many of those Oracle installations were overkill > > in the first place. > > Our place is in that hoary back end that runs the > > world, the un-sexy > > part of any organization that no one outside of the > > Development team, or > > System Administrators know about. > > > > Getting mindshare is a different problem. That > > requires PG to have a > > full time effective press person. This press person > > would need to be in > > touch with the press constantly to tell them things > > like: > > * PG is a great back for windows clients using > > ODBC/MS Access/Excel > > * PG is a "real" database comparable to Oracle > > * PG costs nothing > > * Free support is fabulous, and paid support is > > available > > * Development is constant > > > > In the end, I believe that PG needs to move into an > > organizational > > structure so that its considerable assets can be > > fully realized, its > > wonderful developers may be fully compensated, and > > commercial users (our > > bread and butter), can have an official place to > > help sponsor features > > of the system and so on. All this is more than a > > website. Someone posted > > pictures of the PG booth at a show recently. It was > > nice, but there was > > this one sad guy shrouded in darkness -- I felt > > depressed, because > > that's how PG advocacy felt. > > > > Warm regards, > > Ericson Smith > > DBA/Developer > > > +-----------------------+----------------------------+ > > | http://www.did-it.com | "When I'm paid, I always > > | > > | eric@did-it.com | follow the job through. > > | > > | 516-255-0500 | You know that." -Angel > > Eyes| > > > +-----------------------+----------------------------+ > > > > > > > > > > Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > > >>I'm in a similar situation. My app is currently > > PG-only (although I > > >>_might_ be able to get it work with Firebird > > eventually). Currently I have > > >>to sell Linux to prospective clients in addition > > to my app. A native > > >>Windows version would make my life a bit easier. > > >> > > >> > > >Same here. > > > > > >Our "clients" use legacy medical office software > > that 99% runs > > >on Windows. We offer add-ons (tailored > > mini-versions of our > > >main application :-) and thus get OSS (Python, > > PostgreSQL, > > >wxWindows, sometimes Linux itself) into their > > offices and onto > > >their networks. Most of the time the main > > difficulty is to figure > > >out how to offer PostgreSQL in their environment > > (yes, we know > > >about CygWin). > > > > > >("clients" because we don't do business as in > > selling stuff) > > > > > >Karsten Hilbert, MD > > > > > >www.gnumed.org > > > > > > > > > begin:vcard > > fn:Ericson Smith > > n:Smith;Ericson > > org:Did-it.com;Programming > > adr:#304;;55 Maple Avenue;Rockville > > Center;NY;11570;USA > > email;internet:eric@did-it.com > > title:Web Developer > > tel;work:516-255-0500 > > tel;cell:646-483-3420 > > note:Nothing special! > > x-mozilla-html:FALSE > > url:http://www.did-it.com > > version:2.1 > > end:vcard > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of > > broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > -- Dave Cramer 519 939 0336 ICQ # 1467551
Quoting Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com>: > On Monday 29 December 2003 12:47, Tom Lane wrote: > > Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com> writes: > > > That is right. but that fact remains that postgresql documentation is > > > just sufficient. If you read the manual and follow it religously to > comma > > > and fullstop, it tells you everythings. But it certainly isn't a place > > > where you can glance over it and get hang of it. > > > > This is surely true, and I've not seen anyone denying it. The people > > Well, for newbies to postgresql, let's state this fact upfront and not make > them discover it..:-) > > > who are doing development are, um, not strong at documentation (I > > include myself here). What we need are some folks to step up and > > improve the documentation --- and then maintain it in the face of future > > changes. Any volunteers out there? This is an open-source project > > after all, and that means "scratch your own itch" among other things... > > If you ask me, let's not do that. Not at least on a grand scale. Isolated > areas are OK on case by case basis.. > > I regualrly use development build documentation from > developers.postgresql.org > and I have seen the documentation in source code. In my view, postgresql > developers do document it very clearly whenever required. > > If we dilute the documentation too much, that will make things simpler > initially but that will simply create a maintainance nightmare as one has to > > maintain much larger amount of documentation. > > And once you get used to precise style of postgresql documentation, going > back > to anything else is a pain. ( MSDN.. I scream at nights.... but I digress). > > IMO documentation of postgresql is fine overall. What we need to do is. > > 1. State upfront that this is not handholding. > > It will make lots of things easier and offload work of expanding documents > given limited human resources working on the project. A disclaimer is far > easier to maintain than a manual..:-) > > And it will prepare anybody for upcoming hardships..:-) > > 2. Document and reuse it. > > Personally I would like to see responses on general and oter such list as > URLs. If we answer it repeatedly, let's document it and point the people to > them. Let them dig around 3-4 URLs around it and they will have islands of > enlightenments. Over the period, these island will merge in a great > landscape..:-) > > Just a thought.. > > Shridhar > > P.S. If somebody thinks I can not imagine how a newbie feels, I will agree. > But looking back, dumbing down anything is not good in long term..an > experience that is > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > Shridhar, I tend to agree with you. I personally think the docs are very good and have the techical depth warranted for a product like PostgreSQL. On the other hand for the ad & m (advocacy and marketing) side of things. I'm betting some clearly labelled tutorials/guide next to the disclaimer about the the main docs be more of a reference would appease those who might be a bit green to a product of PG breadth and depth (heck I still think I'm in the category sometimes). 'bout two weeks ago there was another thread where certificating/training et al were discussed and one of the things that I had mentioned was that in that regard, we should probably have more tutorial/guide based on real world scenarios available on techdocs. Although I don't think I qualified to write for the main docs, I definitely can contribute to the techdocs in the manner I just mentioned. Matter a fact, I finally finish my first one "Using PostgreSQL for Domino 6 RDBMS Backends". I'm doing the final read now so hopefully I can get it over to Robert for posting. Perhaps the "newer" folks on the list could tell us what type of guides they want to see. I'm sure someone has a wish list somewhere. -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Hello, How about just a "Getting Started with PostgreSQL" guide... Python is like this. They have the "real" documentation but they also have a introductory tutorial. We could have a brief document (100 pages or less) that talks about the basic concepts of PostgreSQL... Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Shridhar Daithankar wrote: >On Monday 29 December 2003 12:47, Tom Lane wrote: > > >>Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@myrealbox.com> writes: >> >> >>>That is right. but that fact remains that postgresql documentation is >>>just sufficient. If you read the manual and follow it religously to comma >>>and fullstop, it tells you everythings. But it certainly isn't a place >>>where you can glance over it and get hang of it. >>> >>> >>This is surely true, and I've not seen anyone denying it. The people >> >> > >Well, for newbies to postgresql, let's state this fact upfront and not make >them discover it..:-) > > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Quoting Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Tony <tony@unihost.net> writes: > > ... I DO believe however that a decent introduction to > > the more important concepts (Triggers, Fkeys, Stored Proc, Views) that > > people from lesser systems (MySQL, Access) may not be familiar with. > > What they do, how they help, and why they are generally a good thing. > > This intro would probably fit either in the tutorial or in the User Guide. > > Many of these subjects already *are* covered in the Tutorial. Just > looking in the 7.4 table of contents, I see > > 3. Advanced Features > 3.1. Introduction > 3.2. Views > 3.3. Foreign Keys > 3.4. Transactions > 3.5. Inheritance > 3.6. Conclusion > > The discussions are skimpy and could use fleshed out a little, no doubt. > (Anyone who wants to contribute material is surely welcome to.) > > BTW, there is a separate mailing list pgsql-docs for those who want to > work on documentation. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > This concerns me. This is the second time recently someone has said something is NOT documented and it it turn out it is. So my question is (no offense to anyone) are the web sites not "clear" enough to find information quickly or are people just being lax/lazy when they are searching. -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Quoting Karsten Hilbert <Karsten.Hilbert@gmx.net>:
> > I'm in a similar situation. My app is currently PG-only (although I
> > _might_ be able to get it work with Firebird eventually). Currently I have
>
> > to sell Linux to prospective clients in addition to my app. A native
> > Windows version would make my life a bit easier.
> Same here.
>
> Our "clients" use legacy medical office software that 99% runs
> on Windows. We offer add-ons (tailored mini-versions of our
> main application :-) and thus get OSS (Python, PostgreSQL,
> wxWindows, sometimes Linux itself) into their offices and onto
> their networks. Most of the time the main difficulty is to figure
> out how to offer PostgreSQL in their environment (yes, we know
> about CygWin).
>
> ("clients" because we don't do business as in selling stuff)
>
> Karsten Hilbert, MD
>
> www.gnumed.org
> --
> GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
> E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>
I know in a lot of environments this would not be via, especially a medical one
where information is sensitive but have you considered using a hoster to house
your app/database and then writing (windows) clients (with secure backends)?
There are a number of hosters including myself that would probably be more that
willing to partner with you see how with can be does so that it an acceptable
scenario all the way around.
-$0.02
--
Keith C. Perry, MS E.E.
Director of Networks & Applications
VCSN, Inc.
http://vcsn.com
____________________________________
This email account is being host by:
VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Quoting Jeff Eckermann <jeff_eckermann@yahoo.com>: > This has been an interesting thread, with lots of well > considered contributions. The consensus seems to be > "PostgreSQL is plenty good enough and more, we just > need more people to know it, and an easier learning > path". > > What bothers me a little here is an apparent lack of > awareness of the work of the Advocacy Group. They > have been organized for a little over one full release > cycle, but have already begun to achieve some > impressive things. The release of version 7.4 saw a > well prepared press release, which was subsequently > picked up by journalists and featured (often lifted > word for word) in articles in a variety of IT industry > publications around the world. The effect was to get > our marketing material in front of the eyes of many > readers, without them having to go looking for it at > all. When did that happen before? > > I cite that as just one example of what can be > achieved by an organized and co-ordinated approach, > which is just what the Advocacy Group is working on. > The scope for more development along these lines is > huge, all that is needed is the passage of time, and > hopefully more contributions from more people. I > recommend to all those whose interest was caught by > this thread to check out the pgsql-advocacy list, if > you have not already done so, and think about what you > might be able to add. In answer to the obvious > question, I have been lurking on that list for a > while, and intend to make a contribution where I feel > fitted to do so. > > Maybe we need to invent some new solutions, but for > advocacy at least, we already have one. > > --- Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> wrote: > > A documentation system like the one over at > > http://php.net, would be > > fantastic for Postgresql. There could be lookups > > based on SQL commands, > > Functions, and Sitewide Searches. This alone would > > go a long way to > > expose PHP to "the masses". > > > > In terms of using MySQL or Postgresql, lets all face > > it, most data > > storage work could be easily and efficiently handled > > by text files, > > since there needs to be just infrequent inserts and > > updates, and mostly > > reads. The majority of interfaces exposed on the web > > follow this > > paradigm, and include: > > * Content management > > * Catalogs > > * Shopping cart stuff > > * User management > > > > Yes, our powerful and easy to use PG can do all of > > that too, but SQLite, > > Sleepycat DBM files and MySQL can do it as well. > > There are going to be > > even more migrations for Oracle to MySQL than from > > Oracle to PG, because > > so many of those Oracle installations were overkill > > in the first place. > > Our place is in that hoary back end that runs the > > world, the un-sexy > > part of any organization that no one outside of the > > Development team, or > > System Administrators know about. > > > > Getting mindshare is a different problem. That > > requires PG to have a > > full time effective press person. This press person > > would need to be in > > touch with the press constantly to tell them things > > like: > > * PG is a great back for windows clients using > > ODBC/MS Access/Excel > > * PG is a "real" database comparable to Oracle > > * PG costs nothing > > * Free support is fabulous, and paid support is > > available > > * Development is constant > > > > In the end, I believe that PG needs to move into an > > organizational > > structure so that its considerable assets can be > > fully realized, its > > wonderful developers may be fully compensated, and > > commercial users (our > > bread and butter), can have an official place to > > help sponsor features > > of the system and so on. All this is more than a > > website. Someone posted > > pictures of the PG booth at a show recently. It was > > nice, but there was > > this one sad guy shrouded in darkness -- I felt > > depressed, because > > that's how PG advocacy felt. > > > > Warm regards, > > Ericson Smith > > DBA/Developer > > > +-----------------------+----------------------------+ > > | http://www.did-it.com | "When I'm paid, I always > > | > > | eric@did-it.com | follow the job through. > > | > > | 516-255-0500 | You know that." -Angel > > Eyes| > > > +-----------------------+----------------------------+ > > > > > > > > > > Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > > >>I'm in a similar situation. My app is currently > > PG-only (although I > > >>_might_ be able to get it work with Firebird > > eventually). Currently I have > > >>to sell Linux to prospective clients in addition > > to my app. A native > > >>Windows version would make my life a bit easier. > > >> > > >> > > >Same here. > > > > > >Our "clients" use legacy medical office software > > that 99% runs > > >on Windows. We offer add-ons (tailored > > mini-versions of our > > >main application :-) and thus get OSS (Python, > > PostgreSQL, > > >wxWindows, sometimes Linux itself) into their > > offices and onto > > >their networks. Most of the time the main > > difficulty is to figure > > >out how to offer PostgreSQL in their environment > > (yes, we know > > >about CygWin). > > > > > >("clients" because we don't do business as in > > selling stuff) > > > > > >Karsten Hilbert, MD > > > > > >www.gnumed.org > > > > > > > > > begin:vcard > > fn:Ericson Smith > > n:Smith;Ericson > > org:Did-it.com;Programming > > adr:#304;;55 Maple Avenue;Rockville > > Center;NY;11570;USA > > email;internet:eric@did-it.com > > title:Web Developer > > tel;work:516-255-0500 > > tel;cell:646-483-3420 > > note:Nothing special! > > x-mozilla-html:FALSE > > url:http://www.did-it.com > > version:2.1 > > end:vcard > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of > > broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > I've been meaning to join Jeff 'cause I'm tired of seeing my cross-posted replies rejected but see, "what had happened was..." *laff* Seriously though, you guys are doing a hard job in a hard arena. The 7.4 press release got forwarded alot! -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Quoting Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>: > Jeff, > > I agree; we have an apparent lack of awareness of many things. IMO this > is more indicative of a lack of a unified presence than anything else. > part of the project is on gborg, part of the project is on advocacy, > .... etc. > > How would a newbie know to go look for advocacy.postgresql.org ?. > > Dave > On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 10:18, Jeff Eckermann wrote: > > This has been an interesting thread, with lots of well > > considered contributions. The consensus seems to be > > "PostgreSQL is plenty good enough and more, we just > > need more people to know it, and an easier learning > > path". > > > > What bothers me a little here is an apparent lack of > > awareness of the work of the Advocacy Group. They > > have been organized for a little over one full release > > cycle, but have already begun to achieve some > > impressive things. The release of version 7.4 saw a > > well prepared press release, which was subsequently > > picked up by journalists and featured (often lifted > > word for word) in articles in a variety of IT industry > > publications around the world. The effect was to get > > our marketing material in front of the eyes of many > > readers, without them having to go looking for it at > > all. When did that happen before? > > > > I cite that as just one example of what can be > > achieved by an organized and co-ordinated approach, > > which is just what the Advocacy Group is working on. > > The scope for more development along these lines is > > huge, all that is needed is the passage of time, and > > hopefully more contributions from more people. I > > recommend to all those whose interest was caught by > > this thread to check out the pgsql-advocacy list, if > > you have not already done so, and think about what you > > might be able to add. In answer to the obvious > > question, I have been lurking on that list for a > > while, and intend to make a contribution where I feel > > fitted to do so. > > > > Maybe we need to invent some new solutions, but for > > advocacy at least, we already have one. > > > > --- Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> wrote: > > > A documentation system like the one over at > > > http://php.net, would be > > > fantastic for Postgresql. There could be lookups > > > based on SQL commands, > > > Functions, and Sitewide Searches. This alone would > > > go a long way to > > > expose PHP to "the masses". > > > > > > In terms of using MySQL or Postgresql, lets all face > > > it, most data > > > storage work could be easily and efficiently handled > > > by text files, > > > since there needs to be just infrequent inserts and > > > updates, and mostly > > > reads. The majority of interfaces exposed on the web > > > follow this > > > paradigm, and include: > > > * Content management > > > * Catalogs > > > * Shopping cart stuff > > > * User management > > > > > > Yes, our powerful and easy to use PG can do all of > > > that too, but SQLite, > > > Sleepycat DBM files and MySQL can do it as well. > > > There are going to be > > > even more migrations for Oracle to MySQL than from > > > Oracle to PG, because > > > so many of those Oracle installations were overkill > > > in the first place. > > > Our place is in that hoary back end that runs the > > > world, the un-sexy > > > part of any organization that no one outside of the > > > Development team, or > > > System Administrators know about. > > > > > > Getting mindshare is a different problem. That > > > requires PG to have a > > > full time effective press person. This press person > > > would need to be in > > > touch with the press constantly to tell them things > > > like: > > > * PG is a great back for windows clients using > > > ODBC/MS Access/Excel > > > * PG is a "real" database comparable to Oracle > > > * PG costs nothing > > > * Free support is fabulous, and paid support is > > > available > > > * Development is constant > > > > > > In the end, I believe that PG needs to move into an > > > organizational > > > structure so that its considerable assets can be > > > fully realized, its > > > wonderful developers may be fully compensated, and > > > commercial users (our > > > bread and butter), can have an official place to > > > help sponsor features > > > of the system and so on. All this is more than a > > > website. Someone posted > > > pictures of the PG booth at a show recently. It was > > > nice, but there was > > > this one sad guy shrouded in darkness -- I felt > > > depressed, because > > > that's how PG advocacy felt. > > > > > > Warm regards, > > > Ericson Smith > > > DBA/Developer > > > > > +-----------------------+----------------------------+ > > > | http://www.did-it.com | "When I'm paid, I always > > > | > > > | eric@did-it.com | follow the job through. > > > | > > > | 516-255-0500 | You know that." -Angel > > > Eyes| > > > > > +-----------------------+----------------------------+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > > > > >>I'm in a similar situation. My app is currently > > > PG-only (although I > > > >>_might_ be able to get it work with Firebird > > > eventually). Currently I have > > > >>to sell Linux to prospective clients in addition > > > to my app. A native > > > >>Windows version would make my life a bit easier. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >Same here. > > > > > > > >Our "clients" use legacy medical office software > > > that 99% runs > > > >on Windows. We offer add-ons (tailored > > > mini-versions of our > > > >main application :-) and thus get OSS (Python, > > > PostgreSQL, > > > >wxWindows, sometimes Linux itself) into their > > > offices and onto > > > >their networks. Most of the time the main > > > difficulty is to figure > > > >out how to offer PostgreSQL in their environment > > > (yes, we know > > > >about CygWin). > > > > > > > >("clients" because we don't do business as in > > > selling stuff) > > > > > > > >Karsten Hilbert, MD > > > > > > > >www.gnumed.org > > > > > > > > > > > > begin:vcard > > > fn:Ericson Smith > > > n:Smith;Ericson > > > org:Did-it.com;Programming > > > adr:#304;;55 Maple Avenue;Rockville > > > Center;NY;11570;USA > > > email;internet:eric@did-it.com > > > title:Web Developer > > > tel;work:516-255-0500 > > > tel;cell:646-483-3420 > > > note:Nothing special! > > > x-mozilla-html:FALSE > > > url:http://www.did-it.com > > > version:2.1 > > > end:vcard > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of > > > broadcast)--------------------------- > > > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. > > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > > > -- > Dave Cramer > 519 939 0336 > ICQ # 1467551 > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > Dave, I'm not trying to be curt with you or anything but a serious questions, did you not see the links on the right side of http://www.postgresql.org under where it says websites? -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
>This concerns me. This is the second time recently someone has said something >is NOT documented and it it turn out it is. > >So my question is (no offense to anyone) are the web sites not "clear" enough to >find information quickly or are people just being lax/lazy when they are searching. > > > Well, at anything greater than 1024x768 the "docs" link on the main site is near invisible. The font size is fine, but combined with the color scheme and location, it can be hard to spot... Mainly, I think because the page is so busy. If you look at the front page the first thing you see is News which is fine, but IMHO the first thing should be the nav bar comes before News but News is big, bold print. Also searching the PostgreSQL docs is a useless venture. I just typed in trigger and hit search.... 20 seconds later I am still waiting. Why don't we just add Google search to the page? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> How about just a "Getting Started with PostgreSQL" guide... Python
> is like this. They have the "real" documentation but they also have a
> introductory tutorial. We could have a brief document (100 pages or
> less) that talks about the basic concepts of PostgreSQL...
How would this differ from the existing Tutorial?
regards, tom lane
> > Our "clients" use legacy medical office software that 99% runs
> > on Windows. We offer add-ons (tailored mini-versions of our
> > main application :-) and thus get OSS (Python, PostgreSQL,
> > wxWindows, sometimes Linux itself) into their offices and onto
> > their networks. Most of the time the main difficulty is to figure
> > out how to offer PostgreSQL in their environment (yes, we know
> > about CygWin).
> >
> > ("clients" because we don't do business as in selling stuff)
> I know in a lot of environments this would not be via, especially a medical one
> where information is sensitive but have you considered using a hoster to house
> your app/database and then writing (windows) clients (with secure backends)?
Well, this is just for test driving so no sensitive data is of
any concern.
> There are a number of hosters including myself that would probably be more that
> willing to partner with you see how with can be does so that it an acceptable
> scenario all the way around.
I am talking about potential users looking at GnuMed. I am
just a developer, I am not interested in selling anything to
anyone. I am, however, interested in making it easier for them
to have a look at that piece of code. Which involves
connecting to a PostgreSQL instance somewhere some way or other.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
I already had in the first post I replied to, but at the risk of sounding redundant, I'll say it again.
Views: When I came to PG I didn't know what they were, saw no point to them (still don't) why do you need a function to provide details of a query when a more complicated query gives the same data? Are they designed for people who don't like to type long queries?
Stored Procedures: Sounds good in principle, but in what ways can I benefit most (I understand this now) at the time of moving to PG, I couldn't see the difference between writing my code in an a Stored Proc or an API.
Triggers: make perfect sense now, but didn't used to when I didn't know what they were.
This isn't definitive list but more of a flavour of the obstacles I hit when I first met PG. If I hadn't persevered (and many may not) I'd have ended up with a PG server full of DBs designed and built as if they were on a MySQL server.
Yes, the topics are covered fleetingly in the tutorial, but do such important topics only warrant 3 pages of text between the lot of them? It's great that the subjects are present, but it seems to be in more of a kind of "Whilst We're on the Subject of Databases" kind of passing comment.
Maybe I'm asking for the Moon on a Stick, but it didn't feel like I was :)
T.
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
Views: When I came to PG I didn't know what they were, saw no point to them (still don't) why do you need a function to provide details of a query when a more complicated query gives the same data? Are they designed for people who don't like to type long queries?
Stored Procedures: Sounds good in principle, but in what ways can I benefit most (I understand this now) at the time of moving to PG, I couldn't see the difference between writing my code in an a Stored Proc or an API.
Triggers: make perfect sense now, but didn't used to when I didn't know what they were.
This isn't definitive list but more of a flavour of the obstacles I hit when I first met PG. If I hadn't persevered (and many may not) I'd have ended up with a PG server full of DBs designed and built as if they were on a MySQL server.
Yes, the topics are covered fleetingly in the tutorial, but do such important topics only warrant 3 pages of text between the lot of them? It's great that the subjects are present, but it seems to be in more of a kind of "Whilst We're on the Subject of Databases" kind of passing comment.
Maybe I'm asking for the Moon on a Stick, but it didn't feel like I was :)
T.
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On Monday 29 December 2003 15:25, Tony wrote:By that logic then, we can probably ditch the PG Tutorial altogether and provide a quick ref card of PG commands and keywords, with a few pages on how PG is different should be plenty. The bisggest problem that I faced when moving to PG was the complete lack of any cetralised information source for this information. Sure there are tutorials on the web, first track them down, then convert their use to PG then collate them, then make some sense of it all. This is the kind of aloofness that I have mentioned previously, just because it doesn't belong, doesn't mean it's not needed, and it only needs to be written once. Although I know some of the concepts and I'm beginning to grock them, I'm still trying to collate enough to satisfy my needs. Assuming yo *do* want to grow the PG community and attract people from other systems, the easier the transition for them, the less likely they are to look elsewhere for something that appears easier. Easier doesn't always mean easier to use, sometimes it can mean easier to get to grips with.*Sigh*.. You just read my first remark which you could have bypassed but anyways.. What do you think of offer I made? I was slightly disappointed to see that you missed it.. I am not removing my original message. Please read and let me know what do you think..Shridhar Daithankar wrote:For one thing, these thing do not belong to postgresql documentation. But I don't believe there is shortage of material on these topics on web and in print. However if you are refering to explaining these things, w.r.t. postgresql, I would be more than happy to churn out some extremely basic tutorials. Can you tell us what all you need? Rephrasing, if you know these(and some other) concpets by now, what all you missed while learning postgresql? It may sound like stupid question but unlearning things out of imagination is not easy...:-)Shridhar ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
Keith, Oh, there it is, in tiny print. Dave On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 15:03, Keith C. Perry wrote: > Quoting Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>: > > > Jeff, > > > > I agree; we have an apparent lack of awareness of many things. IMO this > > is more indicative of a lack of a unified presence than anything else. > > part of the project is on gborg, part of the project is on advocacy, > > .... etc. > > > > How would a newbie know to go look for advocacy.postgresql.org ?. > > > > Dave > > On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 10:18, Jeff Eckermann wrote: > > > This has been an interesting thread, with lots of well > > > considered contributions. The consensus seems to be > > > "PostgreSQL is plenty good enough and more, we just > > > need more people to know it, and an easier learning > > > path". > > > > > > What bothers me a little here is an apparent lack of > > > awareness of the work of the Advocacy Group. They > > > have been organized for a little over one full release > > > cycle, but have already begun to achieve some > > > impressive things. The release of version 7.4 saw a > > > well prepared press release, which was subsequently > > > picked up by journalists and featured (often lifted > > > word for word) in articles in a variety of IT industry > > > publications around the world. The effect was to get > > > our marketing material in front of the eyes of many > > > readers, without them having to go looking for it at > > > all. When did that happen before? > > > > > > I cite that as just one example of what can be > > > achieved by an organized and co-ordinated approach, > > > which is just what the Advocacy Group is working on. > > > The scope for more development along these lines is > > > huge, all that is needed is the passage of time, and > > > hopefully more contributions from more people. I > > > recommend to all those whose interest was caught by > > > this thread to check out the pgsql-advocacy list, if > > > you have not already done so, and think about what you > > > might be able to add. In answer to the obvious > > > question, I have been lurking on that list for a > > > while, and intend to make a contribution where I feel > > > fitted to do so. > > > > > > Maybe we need to invent some new solutions, but for > > > advocacy at least, we already have one. > > > > > > --- Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> wrote: > > > > A documentation system like the one over at > > > > http://php.net, would be > > > > fantastic for Postgresql. There could be lookups > > > > based on SQL commands, > > > > Functions, and Sitewide Searches. This alone would > > > > go a long way to > > > > expose PHP to "the masses". > > > > > > > > In terms of using MySQL or Postgresql, lets all face > > > > it, most data > > > > storage work could be easily and efficiently handled > > > > by text files, > > > > since there needs to be just infrequent inserts and > > > > updates, and mostly > > > > reads. The majority of interfaces exposed on the web > > > > follow this > > > > paradigm, and include: > > > > * Content management > > > > * Catalogs > > > > * Shopping cart stuff > > > > * User management > > > > > > > > Yes, our powerful and easy to use PG can do all of > > > > that too, but SQLite, > > > > Sleepycat DBM files and MySQL can do it as well. > > > > There are going to be > > > > even more migrations for Oracle to MySQL than from > > > > Oracle to PG, because > > > > so many of those Oracle installations were overkill > > > > in the first place. > > > > Our place is in that hoary back end that runs the > > > > world, the un-sexy > > > > part of any organization that no one outside of the > > > > Development team, or > > > > System Administrators know about. > > > > > > > > Getting mindshare is a different problem. That > > > > requires PG to have a > > > > full time effective press person. This press person > > > > would need to be in > > > > touch with the press constantly to tell them things > > > > like: > > > > * PG is a great back for windows clients using > > > > ODBC/MS Access/Excel > > > > * PG is a "real" database comparable to Oracle > > > > * PG costs nothing > > > > * Free support is fabulous, and paid support is > > > > available > > > > * Development is constant > > > > > > > > In the end, I believe that PG needs to move into an > > > > organizational > > > > structure so that its considerable assets can be > > > > fully realized, its > > > > wonderful developers may be fully compensated, and > > > > commercial users (our > > > > bread and butter), can have an official place to > > > > help sponsor features > > > > of the system and so on. All this is more than a > > > > website. Someone posted > > > > pictures of the PG booth at a show recently. It was > > > > nice, but there was > > > > this one sad guy shrouded in darkness -- I felt > > > > depressed, because > > > > that's how PG advocacy felt. > > > > > > > > Warm regards, > > > > Ericson Smith > > > > DBA/Developer > > > > > > > +-----------------------+----------------------------+ > > > > | http://www.did-it.com | "When I'm paid, I always > > > > | > > > > | eric@did-it.com | follow the job through. > > > > | > > > > | 516-255-0500 | You know that." -Angel > > > > Eyes| > > > > > > > +-----------------------+----------------------------+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > > > > > > >>I'm in a similar situation. My app is currently > > > > PG-only (although I > > > > >>_might_ be able to get it work with Firebird > > > > eventually). Currently I have > > > > >>to sell Linux to prospective clients in addition > > > > to my app. A native > > > > >>Windows version would make my life a bit easier. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >Same here. > > > > > > > > > >Our "clients" use legacy medical office software > > > > that 99% runs > > > > >on Windows. We offer add-ons (tailored > > > > mini-versions of our > > > > >main application :-) and thus get OSS (Python, > > > > PostgreSQL, > > > > >wxWindows, sometimes Linux itself) into their > > > > offices and onto > > > > >their networks. Most of the time the main > > > > difficulty is to figure > > > > >out how to offer PostgreSQL in their environment > > > > (yes, we know > > > > >about CygWin). > > > > > > > > > >("clients" because we don't do business as in > > > > selling stuff) > > > > > > > > > >Karsten Hilbert, MD > > > > > > > > > >www.gnumed.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > begin:vcard > > > > fn:Ericson Smith > > > > n:Smith;Ericson > > > > org:Did-it.com;Programming > > > > adr:#304;;55 Maple Avenue;Rockville > > > > Center;NY;11570;USA > > > > email;internet:eric@did-it.com > > > > title:Web Developer > > > > tel;work:516-255-0500 > > > > tel;cell:646-483-3420 > > > > note:Nothing special! > > > > x-mozilla-html:FALSE > > > > url:http://www.did-it.com > > > > version:2.1 > > > > end:vcard > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of > > > > broadcast)--------------------------- > > > > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. > > > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > > > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > > > > > -- > > Dave Cramer > > 519 939 0336 > > ICQ # 1467551 > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org > > > > Dave, > > I'm not trying to be curt with you or anything but a serious questions, did you > not see the links on the right side of http://www.postgresql.org under where it > says websites? -- Dave Cramer 519 939 0336 ICQ # 1467551
Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>: > > >This concerns me. This is the second time recently someone has said > something > >is NOT documented and it it turn out it is. > > > >So my question is (no offense to anyone) are the web sites not "clear" > enough to > >find information quickly or are people just being lax/lazy when they are > searching. > > > > > > > Well, at anything greater than 1024x768 the "docs" link on the main site > is near invisible. The font size is fine, but combined with the color scheme > and location, it can be hard to spot... Mainly, I think because the page > is so busy. Agreed- I was hoping some else would say that. > If you look at the front page the first thing you see is News which is fine, > but IMHO the first thing should be the nav bar comes before News but > News is big, bold print. > > Also searching the PostgreSQL docs is a useless venture. I just typed in > trigger and hit search.... 20 seconds later I am still waiting. I mentioned that earlier in this thread. > Why don't we just add Google search to the page? > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake That and it is possible to propose a new layout. Something that is somewhat consistant across the major sites (www,gborg,techdoc,advocacy)? And yes, I'd be will to do some work on that. > > > > > -- > Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC > Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. > +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com > > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
The documentation needs to be opened up and interlinked a lot more. For instance, one of the things that makes the PHP site work well, is linking to related functions at the end of each function's description, eg: http://us2.php.net/manual/en/function.pg-fetch-all.php However, check our PG documentation page about the "CREATE SEQUENCE" command: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-createsequence.html That would be a prime page for linking to the sequence manupulation functions. So as a result of this omission, we get many basic sequence questions on the mailing list again and again. Now we would be forced over to Google, if the internal search engine was not working. Assume I am a newbie wanting to know how to get the last value for a sequence.. I would type "last inserted value" into the search engine... In this particular case, I got back no results. Lets face it, Postgresql is great, but the docs are not. PHP was easy to learn because of great function reference, interlinking (leads to feature discovery) and excellent user contributed tips which are edited. To this day, I still refer to my Postgresql Manual, because it is actually faster to find information that way instead of on the website. On the other hand, I never have to refer to a PHP dead tree manual. In my humble opinion, here's what the documentation needs to make the uptake of Postgresql better: * A separate page for every Postgresql function * Interlinking between related functions * Interlinking between SQL Commands pages and function pages * More examples of Pl/pgSQL functions * A custom search engine to address the above -- not just sitewide search * More encouragement of user posting to each manual page * Comprehensive migration section (Oracle => PG, MySQL =>PG), not just Pl/pgSQL examples! I dunno, maybe as users of Postgresql, we could pool together some money ($50 each as a new year present), and get the PHP documentation guys to help us out? They might be more inclined to, since they are dropping MySQL from inclusion in PHP. My first $50 is ready to go if someone organizes this stuff and gives me a Paypal email address to send funds to. Everyone here has a vested interest in Postgresql (heck, my job depends on it). Let's give the documentation writers an applause, but at this point, it really needs to move to the next level folks. Now let me get back to migrating to 7.4 :-) Warmest regards, Ericson Smith Tracking Specialist/DBA +-----------------------+----------------------------+ | http://www.did-it.com | "When I'm paid, I always | | eric@did-it.com | follow the job through. | | 516-255-0500 | You know that." -Angel Eyes| +-----------------------+----------------------------+ Dave Cramer wrote: >Keith, > >Oh, there it is, in tiny print. > >Dave >On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 15:03, Keith C. Perry wrote: > > >>Quoting Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>: >> >> >> >>>Jeff, >>> >>>I agree; we have an apparent lack of awareness of many things. IMO this >>>is more indicative of a lack of a unified presence than anything else. >>>part of the project is on gborg, part of the project is on advocacy, >>>.... etc. >>> >>>How would a newbie know to go look for advocacy.postgresql.org ?. >>> >>>Dave >>>On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 10:18, Jeff Eckermann wrote: >>> >>> >>>>This has been an interesting thread, with lots of well >>>>considered contributions. The consensus seems to be >>>>"PostgreSQL is plenty good enough and more, we just >>>>need more people to know it, and an easier learning >>>>path". >>>> >>>>What bothers me a little here is an apparent lack of >>>>awareness of the work of the Advocacy Group. They >>>>have been organized for a little over one full release >>>>cycle, but have already begun to achieve some >>>>impressive things. The release of version 7.4 saw a >>>>well prepared press release, which was subsequently >>>>picked up by journalists and featured (often lifted >>>>word for word) in articles in a variety of IT industry >>>>publications around the world. The effect was to get >>>>our marketing material in front of the eyes of many >>>>readers, without them having to go looking for it at >>>>all. When did that happen before? >>>> >>>>I cite that as just one example of what can be >>>>achieved by an organized and co-ordinated approach, >>>>which is just what the Advocacy Group is working on. >>>>The scope for more development along these lines is >>>>huge, all that is needed is the passage of time, and >>>>hopefully more contributions from more people. I >>>>recommend to all those whose interest was caught by >>>>this thread to check out the pgsql-advocacy list, if >>>>you have not already done so, and think about what you >>>>might be able to add. In answer to the obvious >>>>question, I have been lurking on that list for a >>>>while, and intend to make a contribution where I feel >>>>fitted to do so. >>>> >>>>Maybe we need to invent some new solutions, but for >>>>advocacy at least, we already have one. >>>> >>>>--- Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>A documentation system like the one over at >>>>>http://php.net, would be >>>>>fantastic for Postgresql. There could be lookups >>>>>based on SQL commands, >>>>>Functions, and Sitewide Searches. This alone would >>>>>go a long way to >>>>>expose PHP to "the masses". >>>>> >>>>>In terms of using MySQL or Postgresql, lets all face >>>>>it, most data >>>>>storage work could be easily and efficiently handled >>>>>by text files, >>>>>since there needs to be just infrequent inserts and >>>>>updates, and mostly >>>>>reads. The majority of interfaces exposed on the web >>>>>follow this >>>>>paradigm, and include: >>>>>* Content management >>>>>* Catalogs >>>>>* Shopping cart stuff >>>>>* User management >>>>> >>>>>Yes, our powerful and easy to use PG can do all of >>>>>that too, but SQLite, >>>>>Sleepycat DBM files and MySQL can do it as well. >>>>>There are going to be >>>>>even more migrations for Oracle to MySQL than from >>>>>Oracle to PG, because >>>>>so many of those Oracle installations were overkill >>>>>in the first place. >>>>>Our place is in that hoary back end that runs the >>>>>world, the un-sexy >>>>>part of any organization that no one outside of the >>>>>Development team, or >>>>>System Administrators know about. >>>>> >>>>>Getting mindshare is a different problem. That >>>>>requires PG to have a >>>>>full time effective press person. This press person >>>>>would need to be in >>>>>touch with the press constantly to tell them things >>>>>like: >>>>>* PG is a great back for windows clients using >>>>>ODBC/MS Access/Excel >>>>>* PG is a "real" database comparable to Oracle >>>>>* PG costs nothing >>>>>* Free support is fabulous, and paid support is >>>>>available >>>>>* Development is constant >>>>> >>>>>In the end, I believe that PG needs to move into an >>>>>organizational >>>>>structure so that its considerable assets can be >>>>>fully realized, its >>>>>wonderful developers may be fully compensated, and >>>>>commercial users (our >>>>>bread and butter), can have an official place to >>>>>help sponsor features >>>>>of the system and so on. All this is more than a >>>>>website. Someone posted >>>>>pictures of the PG booth at a show recently. It was >>>>>nice, but there was >>>>>this one sad guy shrouded in darkness -- I felt >>>>>depressed, because >>>>>that's how PG advocacy felt. >>>>> >>>>>Warm regards, >>>>>Ericson Smith >>>>>DBA/Developer >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>+-----------------------+----------------------------+ >>>> >>>> >>>>>| http://www.did-it.com | "When I'm paid, I always >>>>>| >>>>>| eric@did-it.com | follow the job through. >>>>>| >>>>>| 516-255-0500 | You know that." -Angel >>>>>Eyes| >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>+-----------------------+----------------------------+ >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Karsten Hilbert wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>I'm in a similar situation. My app is currently >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>PG-only (although I >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>_might_ be able to get it work with Firebird >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>eventually). Currently I have >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>to sell Linux to prospective clients in addition >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>to my app. A native >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>Windows version would make my life a bit easier. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>Same here. >>>>>> >>>>>>Our "clients" use legacy medical office software >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>that 99% runs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>on Windows. We offer add-ons (tailored >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>mini-versions of our >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>main application :-) and thus get OSS (Python, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>PostgreSQL, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>wxWindows, sometimes Linux itself) into their >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>offices and onto >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>their networks. Most of the time the main >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>difficulty is to figure >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>out how to offer PostgreSQL in their environment >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>(yes, we know >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>about CygWin). >>>>>> >>>>>>("clients" because we don't do business as in >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>selling stuff) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Karsten Hilbert, MD >>>>>> >>>>>>www.gnumed.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>begin:vcard >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>fn:Ericson Smith >>>>>n:Smith;Ericson >>>>>org:Did-it.com;Programming >>>>>adr:#304;;55 Maple Avenue;Rockville >>>>>Center;NY;11570;USA >>>>>email;internet:eric@did-it.com >>>>>title:Web Developer >>>>>tel;work:516-255-0500 >>>>>tel;cell:646-483-3420 >>>>>note:Nothing special! >>>>>x-mozilla-html:FALSE >>>>>url:http://www.did-it.com >>>>>version:2.1 >>>>>end:vcard >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>---------------------------(end of >>>>>broadcast)--------------------------- >>>>>TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>__________________________________ >>>>Do you Yahoo!? >>>>New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. >>>>http://photos.yahoo.com/ >>>> >>>>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>>>TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command >>>> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>-- >>>Dave Cramer >>>519 939 0336 >>>ICQ # 1467551 >>> >>> >>>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>>TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? >>> >>> http://archives.postgresql.org >>> >>> >>> >>Dave, >> >>I'm not trying to be curt with you or anything but a serious questions, did you >>not see the links on the right side of http://www.postgresql.org under where it >>says websites? >> >>
Attachment
>How would this differ from the existing Tutorial? > > Well, for one it would tell the user how to start postgresql ;) Yes I know that it provides a link to chapter 14 but IMHO the tutorial should be inclusive. New users don't want to jump all over a 1000 page document to figure out how to just start the thing up and start tinkering with it. You shouldn't need anything else to get started. Thus it would be a self contained document. PostgreSQL for Dummies.... Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > regards, tom lane > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 14:31:43 -0500, "Keith C. Perry" <netadmin@vcsn.com> wrote: > > Shridhar, > > I tend to agree with you. I personally think the docs are very good and have > the techical depth warranted for a product like PostgreSQL. On the other hand > for the ad & m (advocacy and marketing) side of things. I'm betting some > clearly labelled tutorials/guide next to the disclaimer about the the main docs > be more of a reference would appease those who might be a bit green to a product > of PG breadth and depth (heck I still think I'm in the category sometimes). Even new users would be well served by skimming over the complete documentation. I don't think it is a good idea to suggest that they not read it. I think you would be better off providing references to learn about RDBMS' in general for people that don't have that background and pointing out some of the Postgres quirks that are likely to trip up people.
Tony wrote: > I already had in the first post I replied to, but at the risk of > sounding redundant, I'll say it again. > > Views: When I came to PG I didn't know what they were, saw no point > to them (still don't) why do you need a function to provide details of > a query when a more complicated query gives the same data? Are they > designed for people who don't like to type long queries? They are designed for several things IMHO. 1. So I don't have to type long queries. 2. So I can have a base query and just append where clauses, joins etc... as I need. 3. So I can provide permissions based on the view, not the table itself -- thus lending to a more flexible acl model. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Tony wrote: > I already had in the first post I replied to, but at the risk of > sounding redundant, I'll say it again. > > Views: When I came to PG I didn't know what they were, saw no point > to them (still don't) why do you need a function to provide details of > a query when a more complicated query gives the same data? Are they > designed for people who don't like to type long queries? Personally I find views useful because I can hide the details of the database internals from the application. Hence they provide an "interface" level abstraction. This is very important if you want to isolate the database and application development. I've never seen that stated in a document. > Stored Procedures: Sounds good in principle, but in what ways can I > benefit most (I understand this now) at the time of moving to PG, I > couldn't see the difference between writing my code in an a Stored > Proc or an API. I don't understand what you mean here/ > > > This isn't definitive list but more of a flavour of the obstacles I > hit when I first met PG. If I hadn't persevered (and many may not) > I'd have ended up with a PG server full of DBs designed and built as > if they were on a MySQL server. Yep - I see that alot.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 15:51:00 -0500, Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> wrote: > > Lets face it, Postgresql is great, but the docs are not. PHP was easy to > learn because of great function reference, interlinking (leads to > feature discovery) and excellent user contributed tips which are edited. > To this day, I still refer to my Postgresql Manual, because it is > actually faster to find information that way instead of on the website. > On the other hand, I never have to refer to a PHP dead tree manual. Once you know where to look for stuff it isn't that hard to find things. This is one of the advantages of reading through the whole manual once to get an idea of whats there. When I need to look things up for Postgres I use a local copy of the web based documentation. > In my humble opinion, here's what the documentation needs to make the > uptake of Postgresql better: > * A separate page for every Postgresql function I don't like this. It will make scrolling through a group of related functions harder. Name anchors can be used to allow links directly to functions. > * A custom search engine to address the above -- not just sitewide search > * More encouragement of user posting to each manual page Do you see these two points as applying to only the copy of the documentation on the Postgres web site, or do you see this being distributed either with the database (as the current documentation is) or as a separate item (like some of the clients are)?
SNIP > > Many of these subjects already *are* covered in the Tutorial. Just > > looking in the 7.4 table of contents, I see > > > > 3. Advanced Features > > 3.1. Introduction > > 3.2. Views > > 3.3. Foreign Keys > > 3.4. Transactions > > 3.5. Inheritance > > 3.6. Conclusion > > > > The discussions are skimpy and could use fleshed out a little, no doubt. > > (Anyone who wants to contribute material is surely welcome to.) SNIP >This concerns me. This is the second time recently someone has said something >is NOT documented and it it turn out it is. > >So my question is (no offense to anyone) are the web sites not "clear" >enough to >find information quickly or are people just being lax/lazy when they are >searching. No offence.. but.. Not clear enough? Not sure. What I do think is that some pages do not go into greater detail where they could and imo should. I have presented this before as an example. If you install PG you're supposed to create a user postgres but nobody writes about what shell that user needs and even if that user is supposed to have a shell at all.. homedir etc?? dunno.. Another example? alright, data types. I found a very helpful list at the website but I didn't see the limitations per type (maximum lenght like MySQL says varchar max 255), or is it hidden somewhere on the PG website?. While working on PG with PHP I noticed several warnings and notices. The PG docs did mention all of them but not if they are good or bad so the hunting continues via google. FWIW, if you feed the message to the PG search it doesn't return anything. It would certainly help if the docs would clarify if something is good or bad. Some messages ago I saw someone writing about something like "this is the manual not handholding". IMO there is a difference between a well written and complete manual and handholding. Having said that, I realise it's a lot of work to keep good documentation into synch with development.. If find the search on Postgresql.org slow and not always very logical, but I think that has been said before.. B.
Bruno Wolff III wrote: >Once you know where to look for stuff it isn't that hard to find things. > > > Yes, but what happens where you don't know where to look for stuff? >This is one of the advantages of reading through the whole manual once >to get an idea of whats there. > > Sure, but who has time to read through a whole manual first? No system I ever learned had me do that. >When I need to look things up for Postgres I use a local copy of the web >based documentation. > > A good idea. But If you work for different locations (home, client's office, office), then that becomes redundant. Besides I would be responsible for syncing the manual from PG to each location. Besides, a local copy would not usually have a search engine built in. >I don't like this. It will make scrolling through a group of related >functions harder. Name anchors can be used to allow links directly to >functions. > > Nope. I disagree with this one. It makes finding stuff easier if you type "nextval()" into a search engine, and it takes you directly to the nextval page. >Do you see these two points as applying to only the copy of the >documentation on the Postgres web site, or do you see this being distributed >either with the database (as the current documentation is) or as >a separate item (like some of the clients are)? > > > In this case, documentation on the website should always be primary. Almost anyone working on modern software is always connected to the internet. A static copy of the interactive documentation can always be distributed with the software. But do many people even refer to the included documentation? To be honest, I dont. The documentation in psql (eg: \h COPY) is as far as i'll go, the next step in the main site, or google. Why rely on documentation on your hard disk that will get out of date soon anyway? - Ericson Smith
Attachment
Hmm... I havn't heard anything about this. Ericson Smith wrote: ... > They might be more inclined to, since they are dropping MySQL from > inclusion in PHP. ... From what I can tell they are not supplying the client libraries anymore. You have to have the libraries installed beforeyou can build support for MySQL. They are not getting rid of support for MySQL, you will just need to supply your ownlibraries, which is what you have to do to get PostgreSQL support as well.
As far as the documentation goes, you know that its bad when you have to lookup SQL examples on the MySQL site to use with Postgresql. I'm no SQL (never read fully my "SQL for Smarties" book) guru, so every little bit helps. If we have a great (not just good, or adequate) documentation site, then the uptake will be better. So why not let pool some funds from members of the list and get some professional help? My wallet is open and ready. Warmest regards, Ericson Smith Tracking Specialist/DBA +-----------------------+----------------------------+ | http://www.did-it.com | "When I'm paid, I always | | eric@did-it.com | follow the job through. | | 516-255-0500 | You know that." -Angel Eyes| +-----------------------+----------------------------+
Attachment
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 16:18:38 -0500, Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> wrote: > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > >Once you know where to look for stuff it isn't that hard to find things. > > > > > > > Yes, but what happens where you don't know where to look for stuff? Then I look though the table of contents to see what sections might be relevant and try them in an order based on which I think are most likely to give me what I want. > > >This is one of the advantages of reading through the whole manual once > >to get an idea of whats there. > > > > > Sure, but who has time to read through a whole manual first? No system I > ever learned had me do that. This I find hard to believe. Reading through the manual (with some skimming) before doing a lot of work will probably end up saving you time in the long run. > > >When I need to look things up for Postgres I use a local copy of the web > >based documentation. > > > > > A good idea. But If you work for different locations (home, client's > office, office), then that becomes redundant. Besides I would be > responsible for syncing the manual from PG to each location. Besides, a > local copy would not usually have a search engine built in. I installed copies of the documentation at home and work while installing the server. However, I don't use Postgres when not at home or work, so the client example doesn't apply to me. In some cases having it on your laptop would be useful. > >I don't like this. It will make scrolling through a group of related > >functions harder. Name anchors can be used to allow links directly to > >functions. > > > > > Nope. I disagree with this one. It makes finding stuff easier if you > type "nextval()" into a search engine, and it takes you directly to the > nextval page. Maybe if you are using google where you won't get placed at the relevant part of the page you get pointed to. With a custom search engine, you could reference directly to the function's entry within a page. > >Do you see these two points as applying to only the copy of the > >documentation on the Postgres web site, or do you see this being > >distributed > >either with the database (as the current documentation is) or as > >a separate item (like some of the clients are)? > > > > > > > In this case, documentation on the website should always be primary. > Almost anyone working on modern software is always connected to the > internet. A static copy of the interactive documentation can always be > distributed with the software. But do many people even refer to the > included documentation? To be honest, I dont. The documentation in psql > (eg: \h COPY) is as far as i'll go, the next step in the main site, or > google. Why rely on documentation on your hard disk that will get out of > date soon anyway? Because it matches the version installed on that machine. When using the documentation on the Postgres site, you need to be concerned about looking at the correct copy unless you are mostly running the latest release.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 02:21:27PM -0700, Guy Fraser wrote: > Ericson Smith wrote: > > > They might be more inclined to, since they are dropping MySQL from > > inclusion in PHP. > > > From what I can tell they are not supplying the client libraries > > anymore. You have to have the libraries installed before you can build > > support for MySQL. They are not getting rid of support for MySQL, you > > will just need to supply your own libraries, which is what you have to > > do to get PostgreSQL support as well. > > Hmm... I havn't heard anything about this. http://www.php.net/mysql "In PHP 5, MySQL is no longer enabled by default, nor is the MySQL library bundled with PHP. Read this FAQ for details on why." Here's the FAQ in question: http://www.php.net/faq.databases#faq.databases.mysql.php5 -- Michael Fuhr http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 16:28:54 -0500, Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> wrote: > As far as the documentation goes, you know that its bad when you have to > lookup SQL examples on the MySQL site to use with Postgresql. I'm no > SQL (never read fully my "SQL for Smarties" book) guru, so every little > bit helps. If we have a great (not just good, or adequate) documentation > site, then the uptake will be better. So why not let pool some funds > from members of the list and get some professional help? My wallet is > open and ready. That kind of question will generally not be postgres specific (unless you are asking about syntax which is compactly described for each SQL command). It might be better to provide references to web sites that provide general information about SQL (if there are any good ones), rather than to spend a lot of resources trying to teach people generic stuff about SQL and RDBMS.
I guess my point is that; should we be pushing to keep the current documentation, or should we be looking to improve it? Should we be moving towards short concise pages describing a single issue that is robustly interlinked, or should we be looking at longer pages anchored by HTML text that if discovered by a search engine makes it actually harder to find information since we have to read through the whole page? Is it better to catalog 1000 specific pages about 1000 things, or 100 pages about 10 things? Which system would bring a user to the information they needed faster, if a search engine that positioned users at the *top* of a document were employed? If presented with a PDF file or an HTML document on the web, which would you use (consider that you need the information now, not an hour later)? Today, we use search engines as the starting point on the web (except for bookmarked or otherwise memorized pages). Why build systems that breaks that paradigm, or take advantage of it insufficiently? Don't get me wrong, I am glad that some documentation is there, but as many other posters have said, it needs to be better. - Ericson Bruno Wolff III wrote: >On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 16:18:38 -0500, > Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> wrote: > > >>Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> >> >> >>>Once you know where to look for stuff it isn't that hard to find things. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Yes, but what happens where you don't know where to look for stuff? >> >> > >Then I look though the table of contents to see what sections might >be relevant and try them in an order based on which I think are most >likely to give me what I want. > > > >>>This is one of the advantages of reading through the whole manual once >>>to get an idea of whats there. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Sure, but who has time to read through a whole manual first? No system I >>ever learned had me do that. >> >> > >This I find hard to believe. Reading through the manual (with some skimming) >before doing a lot of work will probably end up saving you time in the long >run. > > > >>>When I need to look things up for Postgres I use a local copy of the web >>>based documentation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>A good idea. But If you work for different locations (home, client's >>office, office), then that becomes redundant. Besides I would be >>responsible for syncing the manual from PG to each location. Besides, a >>local copy would not usually have a search engine built in. >> >> > >I installed copies of the documentation at home and work while installing >the server. However, I don't use Postgres when not at home or work, so >the client example doesn't apply to me. In some cases having it on your >laptop would be useful. > > > >>>I don't like this. It will make scrolling through a group of related >>>functions harder. Name anchors can be used to allow links directly to >>>functions. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Nope. I disagree with this one. It makes finding stuff easier if you >>type "nextval()" into a search engine, and it takes you directly to the >>nextval page. >> >> > >Maybe if you are using google where you won't get placed at the relevant >part of the page you get pointed to. With a custom search engine, you >could reference directly to the function's entry within a page. > > > >>>Do you see these two points as applying to only the copy of the >>>documentation on the Postgres web site, or do you see this being >>>distributed >>>either with the database (as the current documentation is) or as >>>a separate item (like some of the clients are)? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>In this case, documentation on the website should always be primary. >>Almost anyone working on modern software is always connected to the >>internet. A static copy of the interactive documentation can always be >>distributed with the software. But do many people even refer to the >>included documentation? To be honest, I dont. The documentation in psql >>(eg: \h COPY) is as far as i'll go, the next step in the main site, or >>google. Why rely on documentation on your hard disk that will get out of >>date soon anyway? >> >> > >Because it matches the version installed on that machine. When using >the documentation on the Postgres site, you need to be concerned about >looking at the correct copy unless you are mostly running the latest >release. > > >
Attachment
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 16:45:40 -0500, Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> wrote: > > Today, we use search engines as the starting point on the web (except > for bookmarked or otherwise memorized pages). Why build systems that > breaks that paradigm, or take advantage of it insufficiently? That may be how you do things, but I don't know that everyone does that. I use search engines for some stuff. For postgres I run a doc command that run lynx and points to a local documentation list with about a half dozen documentation sets I use commonly. I follow the Postgres link to get to the Postgres table of contents and then go to which ever section has the information I want. I think you are expecting a bit much out of general search engines if you expect them to figure the correct part of the documentation to return. If you have to go back and forth with the search engine, you are probably better off using the table of contents. Scrolling down large pages even when the search engine doesn't point you to the nearest anchor to what you are looking for isn't that slow. If the page is really big, you can do a text search within the page. I think it is more important for the documentation to be easily readable than for it to be designed so that searched for information will always be near the top of the returned page. P.S. Do you think anyone at Google has thought of adding anchors to their returned URLs to get you closer to the terms you were searching for?
Quoting Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com>: > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > >Once you know where to look for stuff it isn't that hard to find things. > > > > > > > Yes, but what happens where you don't know where to look for stuff? Fair enough- the search engine definitely are problematic and the main site probably needs to be reorganized to clearly identify the most important URLs. > >This is one of the advantages of reading through the whole manual once > >to get an idea of whats there. > > > > > Sure, but who has time to read through a whole manual first? No system I > ever learned had me do that. I'm not a very versused in Oracle but I know that when I used to spec hardware for them the company I was with pretty much wanted us to read everything we could get our hands on. People absolutely should "read" the manual in at least 2 passes. The 1st to get and overview and feel for how the documentation is put together and a 2nd (probably on some specific topics first) to get the nuts and bolts how to do something. I personally don't feel we should like Bruno said early people NOT reading the manual. Saying you have not had to do that before is not really a reason. Its counter-productive in the long run. > >When I need to look things up for Postgres I use a local copy of the web > >based documentation. > > > > > A good idea. But If you work for different locations (home, client's > office, office), then that becomes redundant. Besides I would be > responsible for syncing the manual from PG to each location. Besides, a > local copy would not usually have a search engine built in. I don't see how that is redundant unless you mean, you'd have to download things to multiple sites. You're right that is not the way to go. I think most people get these days that the provided documentation is snapshot and will change but I for one would not want to be online while I was riding the train to NY to look up something that I could have cached locally. The website is the master and the freedom to "sync" (e.g. download) is your choice. > >I don't like this. It will make scrolling through a group of related > >functions harder. Name anchors can be used to allow links directly to > >functions. > > > > > Nope. I disagree with this one. It makes finding stuff easier if you > type "nextval()" into a search engine, and it takes you directly to the > nextval page. I'm not sure how the search function works but I don't see how these two things are mutually exclusive. One function per page would definitely take the context away from where and how you might use a certain functions. I would think in the interest of orderly presentation we would want to group things while still being able to go directly to the function in question. (I've never have a problem searching the documents actually. I think the search engine there is quite good since it hit multiple versions.) > >Do you see these two points as applying to only the copy of the > >documentation on the Postgres web site, or do you see this being > distributed > >either with the database (as the current documentation is) or as > >a separate item (like some of the clients are)? > > > > > > > In this case, documentation on the website should always be primary. > Almost anyone working on modern software is always connected to the > internet. A static copy of the interactive documentation can always be > distributed with the software. But do many people even refer to the > included documentation? To be honest, I dont. The documentation in psql > (eg: \h COPY) is as far as i'll go, the next step in the main site, or > google. Why rely on documentation on your hard disk that will get out of > date soon anyway? > > - Ericson Smith > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
I hate to keep saying, "yes, but...". But! Where are we going with this? Sure we are grizzled developers, who use lynx (links is my favourite), emacs and all that stuff to read our docs, rsync or wget to update them, and we live in SSH consoles. We have the advantage of actually knowing all the ins and outs of SQL and all the various Pg functions. So what's the next step? Do we keep the docs as is with minor improvements as the backend gets upgraded from one version to the next, or do we really step up to the plate and make Postgresql accessible to many new users? Do we stay behind or move forward? Is where we are good enough now? What's next? Do we keep arguing about how it meets our needs now, or look at moving forward to meet the needs of the next crop of new users who think MySQL sucks, but need better documentation? - Ericson Keith C. Perry wrote: >Quoting Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com>: > > > >>Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> >> >> >>>Once you know where to look for stuff it isn't that hard to find things. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Yes, but what happens where you don't know where to look for stuff? >> >> > >Fair enough- the search engine definitely are problematic and the main site >probably needs to be reorganized to clearly identify the most important URLs. > > > >>>This is one of the advantages of reading through the whole manual once >>>to get an idea of whats there. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Sure, but who has time to read through a whole manual first? No system I >>ever learned had me do that. >> >> > >I'm not a very versused in Oracle but I know that when I used to spec hardware >for them the company I was with pretty much wanted us to read everything we >could get our hands on. > >People absolutely should "read" the manual in at least 2 passes. The 1st to get >and overview and feel for how the documentation is put together and a 2nd >(probably on some specific topics first) to get the nuts and bolts how to do >something. I personally don't feel we should like Bruno said early people NOT >reading the manual. Saying you have not had to do that before is not really a >reason. Its counter-productive in the long run. > > > >>>When I need to look things up for Postgres I use a local copy of the web >>>based documentation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>A good idea. But If you work for different locations (home, client's >>office, office), then that becomes redundant. Besides I would be >>responsible for syncing the manual from PG to each location. Besides, a >>local copy would not usually have a search engine built in. >> >> > >I don't see how that is redundant unless you mean, you'd have to download things >to multiple sites. You're right that is not the way to go. I think most people >get these days that the provided documentation is snapshot and will change but I >for one would not want to be online while I was riding the train to NY to look >up something that I could have cached locally. The website is the master and >the freedom to "sync" (e.g. download) is your choice. > > > >>>I don't like this. It will make scrolling through a group of related >>>functions harder. Name anchors can be used to allow links directly to >>>functions. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Nope. I disagree with this one. It makes finding stuff easier if you >>type "nextval()" into a search engine, and it takes you directly to the >>nextval page. >> >> > >I'm not sure how the search function works but I don't see how these two things >are mutually exclusive. One function per page would definitely take the context >away from where and how you might use a certain functions. I would think in the >interest of orderly presentation we would want to group things while still being >able to go directly to the function in question. > >(I've never have a problem searching the documents actually. I think the search >engine there is quite good since it hit multiple versions.) > > > >>>Do you see these two points as applying to only the copy of the >>>documentation on the Postgres web site, or do you see this being >>> >>> >>distributed >> >> >>>either with the database (as the current documentation is) or as >>>a separate item (like some of the clients are)? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>In this case, documentation on the website should always be primary. >>Almost anyone working on modern software is always connected to the >>internet. A static copy of the interactive documentation can always be >>distributed with the software. But do many people even refer to the >>included documentation? To be honest, I dont. The documentation in psql >>(eg: \h COPY) is as far as i'll go, the next step in the main site, or >>google. Why rely on documentation on your hard disk that will get out of >>date soon anyway? >> >>- Ericson Smith >> >> >> > > > >
Attachment
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 17:16:55 -0500, Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> wrote: > > So what's the next step? Do we keep the docs as is with minor > improvements as the backend gets upgraded from one version to the next, > or do we really step up to the plate and make Postgresql accessible to > many new users? Do we stay behind or move forward? Is where we are good > enough now? I don't aggree that splitting up the documentation into very small pages is a good idea. Most of the other other suggestions you made seemed good. I also think that using a local copie of the documentation needs to be doable (though some features may be lost when using it this way).
Quoting "B. van Ouwerkerk" <bvo@atz.nl>: > SNIP > > > > Many of these subjects already *are* covered in the Tutorial. Just > > > looking in the 7.4 table of contents, I see > > > > > > 3. Advanced Features > > > 3.1. Introduction > > > 3.2. Views > > > 3.3. Foreign Keys > > > 3.4. Transactions > > > 3.5. Inheritance > > > 3.6. Conclusion > > > > > > The discussions are skimpy and could use fleshed out a little, no doubt. > > > (Anyone who wants to contribute material is surely welcome to.) > > SNIP > > >This concerns me. This is the second time recently someone has said > something > >is NOT documented and it it turn out it is. > > > >So my question is (no offense to anyone) are the web sites not "clear" > >enough to > >find information quickly or are people just being lax/lazy when they are > >searching. > > No offence.. but.. > > Not clear enough? Not sure. What I do think is that some pages do not go > into greater detail where they could and imo should. > > I have presented this before as an example. If you install PG you're > supposed to create a user postgres but nobody writes about what shell that > user needs and even if that user is supposed to have a shell at all.. > homedir etc?? dunno.. Hmmmm. Ok, I had several gut reactions... 1) The shell doesn't matter unless you're interfacing to the DB with shell scripts. In that case pick your poison 2) I wonder how the linux skills set of those installing PG are 3) there are several ways to add users in linux 3) Wait- forget linux what about FreeBSD the other OS' Conclusion, we can't possibly do detailed descriptions for every nuance BUT, I do understand what you mean. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/installation.html#INSTALL-SHORT I suppose could be expanded (or at least commented). That section should probably read as overview since we still what the "long" version read too. I was going to upgrade to 7.4.1 on my laptop so if people think a "Installing PostgreSQL on Linux" technote is needed (and does not already exsist in another form) then I'd be more than happy to do it. > Another example? alright, data types. I found a very helpful list at the > website but I didn't see the limitations per type (maximum lenght like > MySQL says varchar max 255), or is it hidden somewhere on the PG website?. ??? That is right in the Data Types chapter... http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/datatype.html > While working on PG with PHP I noticed several warnings and notices. The PG > docs did mention all of them but not if they are good or bad so the hunting > continues via google. > FWIW, if you feed the message to the PG search it doesn't return anything. > > It would certainly help if the docs would clarify if something is good or > bad. I was just running something else so my mind is not mush but I thought the messages reported were prepending with the standard syslog severity level, no? > Some messages ago I saw someone writing about something like "this is the > manual not handholding". IMO there is a difference between a well written > and complete manual and handholding. > Having said that, I realise it's a lot of work to keep good documentation > into synch with development.. What was meant there (for my part in that) is that the docs are very complete when you consider them as references. That is really what you are going to need after you learn the product. I think what is coming out of this discussion today is that we the current docs are references and might scare of people who are need to SQL and/or PG so, we need something else to get them going and used to how things are done in the PG world. > If find the search on Postgresql.org slow and not always very logical, but > I think that has been said before.. If this was IRC and we had a word bot slow and search would be in the top 5 today :) > B. > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Hello all,
am I the only one preferring plain old printed documentation? Or do you
all have 55 inch gigapixel displays being able to show browser based
documentation, an editor, a debugger and the application to be
developed at the same time?
IMHO HTML or similiar documentation with links and full text search
engines is quite useful to find just the little piece of information
that is missing - or a user´s comment to the documented matter (the
commented PHP online documentation is a good example for that), but if
you seriously develop something, some kind of printed matter is
unbeatable:
You can put it on your desk besides the display, not using precious
space on the display itself;
you can add your own comments and experiences by writing them with a
simple pencil next to the published information;
you can study this kind of documentation without switching on a
computer, nearly everywhere, as long as there is some light.
Of course sometimes fancy search engines may speed up looking for
special information, but these situations are quite rare compared with
the need for the knowledge how things work and can be used.
So if documentation is provided as "browseable" (like HTML), it should
_always_ be acomplished by "printable" equal documentation as well, and
not just HTML without formatting elements but really printable, like
Postscript or PDF, neatly formatted.
YMMV.
Regards, Frank.
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:45:40 -0500 Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> sat
down, thought long and then wrote:
> I guess my point is that; should we be pushing to keep the current
> documentation, or should we be looking to improve it?
>
> Should we be moving towards short concise pages describing a single
> issue that is robustly interlinked, or should we be looking at longer
> pages anchored by HTML text that if discovered by a search engine
> makes it actually harder to find information since we have to read
> through the whole page?
>
> Is it better to catalog 1000 specific pages about 1000 things, or 100
> pages about 10 things? Which system would bring a user to the
> information they needed faster, if a search engine that positioned
> users at the *top* of a document were employed? If presented with a
> PDF file or an HTML document on the web, which would you use (consider
> that you need the information now, not an hour later)?
>
> Today, we use search engines as the starting point on the web (except
> for bookmarked or otherwise memorized pages). Why build systems that
> breaks that paradigm, or take advantage of it insufficiently?
>
> Don't get me wrong, I am glad that some documentation is there, but as
> many other posters have said, it needs to be better.
>
> - Ericson
>
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 16:18:38 -0500,
> > Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Once you know where to look for stuff it isn't that hard to find
> >things.>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Yes, but what happens where you don't know where to look for stuff?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Then I look though the table of contents to see what sections might
> >be relevant and try them in an order based on which I think are most
> >likely to give me what I want.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>This is one of the advantages of reading through the whole manual
> >once>>to get an idea of whats there.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Sure, but who has time to read through a whole manual first? No
> >system I >ever learned had me do that.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This I find hard to believe. Reading through the manual (with some
> >skimming) before doing a lot of work will probably end up saving you
> >time in the long run.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>When I need to look things up for Postgres I use a local copy of
> >the web>>based documentation.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>A good idea. But If you work for different locations (home, client's
> >>office, office), then that becomes redundant. Besides I would be
> >>responsible for syncing the manual from PG to each location.
> >Besides, a >local copy would not usually have a search engine built
> >in.>
> >>
> >
> >I installed copies of the documentation at home and work while
> >installing the server. However, I don't use Postgres when not at home
> >or work, so the client example doesn't apply to me. In some cases
> >having it on your laptop would be useful.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>I don't like this. It will make scrolling through a group of
> >related>>functions harder. Name anchors can be used to allow links
> >directly to>>functions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Nope. I disagree with this one. It makes finding stuff easier if you
> >>type "nextval()" into a search engine, and it takes you directly to
> >the >nextval page.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Maybe if you are using google where you won't get placed at the
> >relevant part of the page you get pointed to. With a custom search
> >engine, you could reference directly to the function's entry within a
> >page.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Do you see these two points as applying to only the copy of the
> >>>documentation on the Postgres web site, or do you see this being
> >>>distributed
> >>>either with the database (as the current documentation is) or as
> >>>a separate item (like some of the clients are)?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>In this case, documentation on the website should always be primary.
> >>Almost anyone working on modern software is always connected to the
> >>internet. A static copy of the interactive documentation can always
> >be >distributed with the software. But do many people even refer to
> >the >included documentation? To be honest, I dont. The documentation
> >in psql >(eg: \h COPY) is as far as i'll go, the next step in the
> >main site, or >google. Why rely on documentation on your hard disk
> >that will get out of >date soon anyway?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Because it matches the version installed on that machine. When using
> >the documentation on the Postgres site, you need to be concerned
> >about looking at the correct copy unless you are mostly running the
> >latest release.
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Frank Finner
Memory follows memory, memory defeats memory; some things are banished
only into the realms of our rich imaginings - but this does not mean
that they do not or cannot or will not exist - they exist! They exist!
(M. Moorcock, "The Revenge Of The Rose")
--- "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > >How would this differ from the existing Tutorial? > > > > > Well, for one it would tell the user how to start > postgresql ;) > > Yes I know that it provides a link to chapter 14 but > IMHO the > tutorial should be inclusive. New users don't want > to > jump all over a 1000 page document to figure out how > to > just start the thing up and start tinkering with it. > You shouldn't > need anything else to get started. Thus it would be > a self contained > document. > > PostgreSQL for Dummies.... > Isn't this what books are supposed to be for? i.e. to fill in the gaps or provide the coverage, tips, howtos etc. etc. that no-one really expects formal documentation to cover. There are quite a few good books out there, including two accessible online, with links from the www.postgresql.org page (that must have been modesty on your part ;-) ). Bruce's book, even referring to an outdated version of PostgreSQL, still gives a pretty good introduction for an SQL newbie in how to get started. We have plenty of good stuff already out there, the issue here appears to be more one of presentation and organization. BTW, I suspect that the prospect of a "PostgreSQL For Dummies" book would be a cause of horror and consternation amongst the initiated ;-) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
> > I have presented this before as an example. If you install PG you're > > supposed to create a user postgres but nobody writes about what shell that > > user needs and even if that user is supposed to have a shell at all.. > > homedir etc?? dunno.. > >Hmmmm. Ok, I had several gut reactions... > >1) The shell doesn't matter unless you're interfacing to the DB with > shell scripts. In that case pick your poison >2) I wonder how the linux skills set of those installing PG are >3) there are several ways to add users in linux >3) Wait- forget linux what about FreeBSD the other OS' I'm not asking to explain how to add users to the system. I assume there is something you might even call a recommended setup.. It would be nice if that was included in the docs. I realise that at some point most admins will adapt it to their own ideas. >Conclusion, we can't possibly do detailed descriptions for every nuance BUT, I >do understand what you mean. A recommended setup could be included for say Linux that would allow users of other OS's to adapt it to their own OS. Having said that, I think most of the install is the same for all supported operating systems. >I was going to upgrade to 7.4.1 on my laptop so if people think a "Installing >PostgreSQL on Linux" technote is needed (and does not already exsist in >another >form) then I'd be more than happy to do it. The manual is clear on this part. > > Another example? alright, data types. I found a very helpful list at the > > website but I didn't see the limitations per type (maximum lenght like > > MySQL says varchar max 255), or is it hidden somewhere on the PG website?. > >??? That is right in the Data Types chapter... > >http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/datatype.html I still don't find it. I know you can do a varchar(255) but what is the maximum PG will allow? Is there a maximum? In short, how much can I put into the field before it breaks. But perhaps I should keep my mouth shut until I have been reading a good book ;-) still think it should be in the docs though. > > It would certainly help if the docs would clarify if something is good or > > bad. > >I was just running something else so my mind is not mush but I thought the >messages reported were prepending with the standard syslog severity level, no? It says either WARNING, NOTICE (IIRC),??. But the information from the docs are not clear on if you want to find out how severe it is. And perhaps ways to prevent them? Although that might depend much on the code.. and isn't interesting once you know how to work with PG.. > > Some messages ago I saw someone writing about something like "this is the > > manual not handholding". IMO there is a difference between a well written > > and complete manual and handholding. > > Having said that, I realise it's a lot of work to keep good documentation > > into synch with development.. > >What was meant there (for my part in that) is that the docs are very complete >when you consider them as references. That is really what you are going >to need >after you learn the product. I think what is coming out of this discussion >today is that we the current docs are references and might scare of people who >are need to SQL and/or PG so, we need something else to get them going and >used >to how things are done in the PG world. I know a fair bit of SQL, just wanne know more about PG. Next year I will start shopping at the nearest bookstore to see what they have on PG.. Hopefully there is a book that compares to the book MySQL but then for PG.. B.
On this very topic, and digressing a little, I lost track of the XML/Jade PDF document problems thread as it moved across different lists. Was that ever resolved, or will the 7.4 PDF docs still be sometime off?
T.
Frank Finner wrote:
T.
Frank Finner wrote:
Hello all, am I the only one preferring plain old printed documentation? Or do you all have 55 inch gigapixel displays being able to show browser based documentation, an editor, a debugger and the application to be developed at the same time? IMHO HTML or similiar documentation with links and full text search engines is quite useful to find just the little piece of information that is missing - or a user´s comment to the documented matter (the commented PHP online documentation is a good example for that), but if you seriously develop something, some kind of printed matter is unbeatable: You can put it on your desk besides the display, not using precious space on the display itself; you can add your own comments and experiences by writing them with a simple pencil next to the published information; you can study this kind of documentation without switching on a computer, nearly everywhere, as long as there is some light. Of course sometimes fancy search engines may speed up looking for special information, but these situations are quite rare compared with the need for the knowledge how things work and can be used. So if documentation is provided as "browseable" (like HTML), it should _always_ be acomplished by "printable" equal documentation as well, and not just HTML without formatting elements but really printable, like Postscript or PDF, neatly formatted. YMMV. Regards, Frank. On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:45:40 -0500 Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> sat down, thought long and then wrote:I guess my point is that; should we be pushing to keep the current documentation, or should we be looking to improve it? Should we be moving towards short concise pages describing a single issue that is robustly interlinked, or should we be looking at longer pages anchored by HTML text that if discovered by a search engine makes it actually harder to find information since we have to read through the whole page? Is it better to catalog 1000 specific pages about 1000 things, or 100 pages about 10 things? Which system would bring a user to the information they needed faster, if a search engine that positioned users at the *top* of a document were employed? If presented with a PDF file or an HTML document on the web, which would you use (consider that you need the information now, not an hour later)? Today, we use search engines as the starting point on the web (except for bookmarked or otherwise memorized pages). Why build systems that breaks that paradigm, or take advantage of it insufficiently? Don't get me wrong, I am glad that some documentation is there, but as many other posters have said, it needs to be better. - Ericson Bruno Wolff III wrote:On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 16:18:38 -0500,Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> wrote:Bruno Wolff III wrote:Once you know where to look for stuff it isn't that hard to findthings.>>Yes, but what happens where you don't know where to look for stuff?Then I look though the table of contents to see what sections might be relevant and try them in an order based on which I think are most likely to give me what I want.This is one of the advantages of reading through the whole manualonce>>to get an idea of whats there.This I find hard to believe. Reading through the manual (with some skimming) before doing a lot of work will probably end up saving you time in the long run.When I need to look things up for Postgres I use a local copy ofthe web>>based documentation.I installed copies of the documentation at home and work while installing the server. However, I don't use Postgres when not at home or work, so the client example doesn't apply to me. In some cases having it on your laptop would be useful.I don't like this. It will make scrolling through a group ofrelated>>functions harder. Name anchors can be used to allow links directly to>>functions.Maybe if you are using google where you won't get placed at the relevant part of the page you get pointed to. With a custom search engine, you could reference directly to the function's entry within a page.Do you see these two points as applying to only the copy of the documentation on the Postgres web site, or do you see this being distributed either with the database (as the current documentation is) or as a separate item (like some of the clients are)?In this case, documentation on the website should always be primary. Almost anyone working on modern software is always connected to the internet. A static copy of the interactive documentation can alwaysbe >distributed with the software. But do many people even refer to the >included documentation? To be honest, I dont. The documentation in psql >(eg: \h COPY) is as far as i'll go, the next step in the main site, or >google. Why rely on documentation on your hard disk that will get out of >date soon anyway?Because it matches the version installed on that machine. When using the documentation on the Postgres site, you need to be concerned about looking at the correct copy unless you are mostly running the latest release.
El Lun 29 Dic 2003 20:18, Jeff Eckermann escribió:
>
> Isn't this what books are supposed to be for? i.e. to
> fill in the gaps or provide the coverage, tips, howtos
> etc. etc. that no-one really expects formal
> documentation to cover. There are quite a few good
> books out there, including two accessible online, with
> links from the www.postgresql.org page (that must have
> been modesty on your part ;-) ). Bruce's book, even
> referring to an outdated version of PostgreSQL, still
> gives a pretty good introduction for an SQL newbie in
> how to get started.
I haven't read the latest review of Bruce's book, but I can recall that the
original version started with:
In this chapter, you will learn how to connect to the database server and
issue simple commands to the POSTGRESQL server.
At this point, the book makes the following assumptions:
* You have installed POSTGRESQL.
* You have a running POSTGRESQL server.
* You are configured as a POSTGRESQL user.
* You have a database called test.
==========================================================================
Now, Joshua was talking about getting PostgreSQL started, which Bruce assums
you already know.
Anyway, I must admit that if you have PG installed and running, which is very
simple on normal Linux distributions, this book gives a huge boost to any
newbie.
--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | mmarques@unl.edu.ar
Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telemática
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, sometimes these questions will be postgres specific, and this is
where the docs are too light.
An example is an update statement using values from a correlated subquery.
Here's example code in pgsql:
update PHOTO.WPImage
set WPImageStateID = 3,
Width = WPImageHeader.Width,
Height = WPImageHeader.Height,
ContentType = WPImageHeader.ContentType,
ContentLength = WPImageHeader.ContentLength
where WPImage.WDResourceID = WPImageHeader.WDResourceID
and WPImage.WDResourceID = pResourceID
and WPImage.WPSizeTypeID = 0;
In Oracle this might be written:
update PHOTO.WPImage i
set WPImageStateID = 3,
(Width, Height, ContentType, ContentLength) = (
select Width, Height, ContentType, ContentLength
from PHOTO.WPImageHeader ih
where ih.WDResourceID = i.WDResourceID)
where WPImage.WDResourceID = pResourceID
and WPImage.WPSizeTypeID = 0;
You'll notice that the syntax is entirely different, and very relevant for
inclusion in the docs for each database's update statement.
I've mentioned it before but here it is again, contrast this explanation
of the UPDATE command in postgres with Oracle's explanation. Which one
would explain how to make use of a correlated subquery without resorting
to more googling or the list?
postgres: http://www.postgres.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-update.html
Oracle: http://miami.int.gu.edu.au/dbs/7016/a85397/state27a.htm#2067717
My point is not so much that the docs are difficult for newbies (and they
probably are), but that they just lack sufficient meat which really ought
to be included.
John Sidney-Woollett
Bruno Wolff III said:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 16:28:54 -0500,
> Ericson Smith <eric@did-it.com> wrote:
>> As far as the documentation goes, you know that its bad when you have to
>> lookup SQL examples on the MySQL site to use with Postgresql. I'm no
>> SQL (never read fully my "SQL for Smarties" book) guru, so every little
>> bit helps. If we have a great (not just good, or adequate) documentation
>> site, then the uptake will be better. So why not let pool some funds
>> from members of the list and get some professional help? My wallet is
>> open and ready.
>
> That kind of question will generally not be postgres specific (unless
> you are asking about syntax which is compactly described for each
> SQL command). It might be better to provide references to web sites
> that provide general information about SQL (if there are any good ones),
> rather than to spend a lot of resources trying to teach people generic
> stuff about SQL and RDBMS.
>
> ---------------------------(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
>
El Lun 29 Dic 2003 20:24, B. van Ouwerkerk escribió: > > > > Another example? alright, data types. I found a very helpful list at the > > > website but I didn't see the limitations per type (maximum lenght like > > > MySQL says varchar max 255), or is it hidden somewhere on the PG website?. I can recall that Informix had a maximun of 255 characters in the varchar, which was documented, but if I created a table with varchar(350) it would silently default to 255. Very nasty. :-( > >??? That is right in the Data Types chapter... > > > >http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/datatype.html > > I still don't find it. I know you can do a varchar(255) but what is the > maximum PG will allow? Is there a maximum? > In short, how much can I put into the field before it breaks. As it says in http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/datatype-character.html: SQL defines two primary character types: character varying(n) and character(n), where n is a positive integer. Both of these types can store strings up to n characters in length. Does it say that there is a limit? Yes surely there is one, which most likely will depends on the Processor and OS you are running (64 bit or 32 bit), but anyway, such log varchars wouldn't be that recommended, and maybe the TEXT data type would be more suitable. > But perhaps I should keep my mouth shut until I have been reading a good > book ;-) still think it should be in the docs though. You should! :-) -- select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email; ----------------------------------------------------------------- Martín Marqués | mmarques@unl.edu.ar Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telemática Universidad Nacional del Litoral -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec 29, 2003, at 6:40, Ericson Smith wrote:
> In terms of using MySQL or Postgresql, lets all face it, most data
> storage work could be easily and efficiently handled by text files,
> since there needs to be just infrequent inserts and updates, and
> mostly reads. The majority of interfaces exposed on the web follow
> this paradigm, and include:
> * Content management
> * Catalogs
> * Shopping cart stuff
> * User management
>
> Yes, our powerful and easy to use PG can do all of that too, but
> SQLite, Sleepycat DBM files
In case of SQLite, BDB, plain files, etc... that all requires there to
be only a single system running your app and DB through the lifetime of
the application.
Transactions are definitely required for most of those things to work
correctly (how do you turn a shopping cart into an order correctly
without a transaction?). SQLite and BDB will get you there given the
previous caveat.
Neither really gives you an easy way to look at your data directly.
SQLite's tools are no psql, and I've had problems trying to read data
from apps that use sqlite while it's got the thing open (file locking
problems).
--
SPY My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub 1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>
| Key fingerprint = 87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6 C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________
On Dec 29, 2003, at 12:15, Tony wrote:
> I already had in the first post I replied to, but at the risk of
> sounding redundant, I'll say it again.
>
> Views: When I came to PG I didn't know what they were, saw no point
> to them (still don't) why do you need a function to provide details of
> a query when a more complicated query gives the same data? Are they
> designed for people who don't like to type long queries?
This is a standard database concept. You can do lots of things with
Views. For example, you can create a subview of a table that only
reveals a few columns and provide access to that view to a specific
group of people who can't see the whole table. You can also use them
as an abstraction layer for applications (i.e. we have a DB guy who
makes minor schema changes regularly and maintains the actual queries
our application uses without us necessarily having to know).
> Stored Procedures: Sounds good in principle, but in what ways can I
> benefit most (I understand this now) at the time of moving to PG, I
> couldn't see the difference between writing my code in an a Stored
> Proc or an API.
This is a standard database concept. They're useful for triggers
among other things. We don't use them a lot in our application
anymore, but they can be useful if there's a lot of complicated DB
interaction required for a specific thing to occur when it doesn't
require a great deal of input.
> Triggers: make perfect sense now, but didn't used to when I didn't
> know what they were.
Right, a standard database concept.
> This isn't definitive list but more of a flavour of the obstacles I
> hit when I first met PG. If I hadn't persevered (and many may not)
> I'd have ended up with a PG server full of DBs designed and built as
> if they were on a MySQL server.
>
> Yes, the topics are covered fleetingly in the tutorial, but do such
> important topics only warrant 3 pages of text between the lot of
> them? It's great that the subjects are present, but it seems to be in
> more of a kind of "Whilst We're on the Subject of Databases" kind of
> passing comment.
>
> Maybe I'm asking for the Moon on a Stick, but it didn't feel like I
> was :)
The problem you're describing isn't ``how can we provide documentation
that helps people understand postgres better,'' but ``how can we
provide documentation to teach people database concepts.''
It might be nice to provide a really nice SQL and RDBMS concept
reference, but it would be beyond the scope of product documentation
(somewhat).
Perhaps another documentation set for unteaching mySQL might be nice
as well. They're taking care of some of that themselves (by
implementing a lot of the things they used to say were unimportant
crutches for lazy programmers), but a lot of it still resonates. I get
annoyed every time I read someone suggesting that transactions aren't
required for most applications, or that subqueries are for lazy people
who can't do loops in code or whatever.
--
SPY My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub 1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>
| Key fingerprint = 87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6 C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________
Jeff Eckermann wrote: > been modesty on your part ;-) ). Bruce's book, even > referring to an outdated version of PostgreSQL, still > gives a pretty good introduction for an SQL newbie in > how to get started. Yes, my book was designed to teach people enough about PostgreSQL so they can use the manuals effectively for more complex issues. -- 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
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Keith C. Perry wrote: > > Admittedly this deterrent won't stop a determined newbie from finding > > what they are after, but I'm sure there are some folk who would just > > assume that postgres is deficient in this area. Note some previous posts > > from others which demonstrates my point. > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-12/msg01358.php > > > > This gentleman finally found pgadmin III which solved his problem. But > > I'm sure he had to look for it. > > Short of the README file with the source release and reorganizing the web site. > I don't see what else could be done. I sincerely hope we're not going the path > of MS and trying to make things "idiot proof". PostgreSQL is robust complex > product and at a certain point I would think the powers that be would have to > say enough is enough as it relates to trying to make things easy. > > On a side note though, I did try to search of "php interface" (something I know > nothing about as it relates to PG) from the search link on the main website and > I had to cancel it because it never returned anything after several minutes. > That definitely would be frustrating to a new/prospective user. > > > I suggest that these issues, and, other issues on the thread, go to the points that I raised, in the thread about PostgreSQL training. From my understanding, issues such as the PHP API, the Perl DBI, and other interfacing, for example, are covered in the "Teach Yourself MySQL In 21 Days" book. Similarly, also, things like pgaccess and pgadmin, could be included in a "Teach Yourself PostgreSQL in 21 Days" book, or equivalent, if someone would create one. And, I believe that such a book, if done well, would have a market This is why, as I previously said, what is needed, is a formalised, standardised, structured, PostgreSQL training course (or set of courses). It is alright for people in this thread, to say "But they are MySQL, and MySQL is not as powerful as PostgreSQL, so who cares what advantages there are in MySQL", but MySQL appears to be more mature, as it has things like standardised, formalised, structured, training courses and secrtifications, and, the "Teach Yourself MySQL in 21 Days" book, and that series of books has set exercises, etc, to aid the learning, and, as far as I am aware, PostgreSQL has no equivalent of those things. What PostgreSQL appears to have, is various books about it, and, resources scattered, those books and resources, from my understanding, are reference books and resources, rather than learning (Teach Yourself) resources, and various institutions offering training, in specific locations. But, it appears to have nothing like the MySQL worldwide standardised, formalised, structured, training and certification, and, the Teach Yourself MySQL in 21 Days" book. Perhaps, a good development would be to develop a PostgreSQL curriculum, with modules, starting with how to instal and configure PostgreSQL, database design techniques, using basic SQL, using more advanced features of SQL, API's, DBI's and ODBC and JDBC, optimising queries, etc, showing schema, etc, and performance tuning, and so on. Doing this on a top-down basis, could result in having published on the web, HTML pages and printable PDF files, of modules, that would take a person from little or no database knowledge, through to the level of PostgreSQL guru. There appears to have been resistance to these things, using the "build it and they will come" attitude - "PostgreSQL is a better DBMS, so people will flock to it", but, if it is made difficult for people to migrate, or to learn it, are they really likely to flock to PostgreSQL? This may appear like "flogging a dead horse", but, as I have said, I believe that this has been covered in the PostgreSQL training thread, and, again, I suggest that what PostgreSQL really needs, is formalised, standardised, structured, training and certification, and, the willingness of the PostgreSQL community to have these things, otherwise, as I said in the aforementioned thread, the PostgreSQL people are to be regarded as with the Perl community people - using the title JAPH - for the Perl community, "Just Another Perl Hacker", and, for the PostgreSQL community, "Just Another PostgreSQL Hacker". Sure, Perl is more powerful than PHP, but Perl practitioners tend to be regarded as sorcerers, and Perl programming, as a black art, and, PostgreSQL probably the same, in the absence of formalised, standardised, structured, training and certification, and, resources like the Teach Yourself MySQL in 21 Days" book, which things would equally make learning PostgreSQL, and, gaining formal recognition for PostgreSQL skills, through the certifications, available to the common people, rather than making PostgreSQL programming, a black art with a secret society atmosphere, with the policy "If you can find it, you might be able to learn it". It is useful, to have the resources that exist, including the support from the mailing lists, but, what is sorely lacking, is the existence of the things that I have repeatedly mentioned; formalised, standardised, structured, training and certification, and, a "Teach Yourself PostgreSQLin 21 Days" book, with appropriate set exercises, as in any good trauining course. When PostgreSQL has these, then it will have achieved the maturity of MySQL, and other DBMS's, like Oracle, etc., and, then, PostgreSQL might become widely used, and displace the other DBMS's. Until then, it will likely be still regarded as a hacker's DBMS, as Perl is regarded a language for hackers, or hack programmers. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
"Ericson Smith" <eric@did-it.com> Wrote: > A documentation system like the one over at http://php.net, would be > fantastic for Postgresql. There could be lookups based on SQL commands, > Functions, and Sitewide Searches. This alone would go a long way to > expose PHP to "the masses". > Here is the problem, IMO. PHP has a very well developed documentation system which already closely parallels the PostgreSQL docs-- i.e. light tutorial, with more advanced manual sections, etc. In fact, the PostgreSQL documentation has more depth and is more comprehensive than the PHP manual (which is broad and shallow).. However, a language like PHP is very different from an enterprise DB, so our tutorial really doesn't help a newbie to databases understand how to USE PostgreSQL. In order to do this, it would need to cover a bunch of other topics as well, such as normalization, etc. The result would be something that you probably would not want to include in your standard reference manual. In other threads, I have been vocal on the need for a community-maintained PostgreSQL curriculum separate from the official PostgreSQL docs. I honestly think that this need would be well addressed by such a curriculum. The closest thing that is available at the moment, IMO, is Bruce Momjian's book. > In terms of using MySQL or Postgresql, lets all face it, most data > storage work could be easily and efficiently handled by text files, > since there needs to be just infrequent inserts and updates, and mostly > reads. The majority of interfaces exposed on the web follow this > paradigm, and include: > * Content management > * Catalogs > * Shopping cart stuff > * User management > True, until you need transactional control. Then text files break down very fast. > Yes, our powerful and easy to use PG can do all of that too, but SQLite, > Sleepycat DBM files and MySQL can do it as well. There are going to be > even more migrations for Oracle to MySQL than from Oracle to PG, because > so many of those Oracle installations were overkill in the first place. Perhaps, except that Oracle DBA's may find PostgreSQL more to their liking than MySQL. > Getting mindshare is a different problem. That requires PG to have a > full time effective press person. This press person would need to be in > touch with the press constantly to tell them things like: > * PG is a great back for windows clients using ODBC/MS Access/Excel > * PG is a "real" database comparable to Oracle > * PG costs nothing > * Free support is fabulous, and paid support is available > * Development is constant And this need is not filled by the Advocacy group how? If we were to do as you propose, who would pay that person? > In the end, I believe that PG needs to move into an organizational > structure so that its considerable assets can be fully realized, its > wonderful developers may be fully compensated, and commercial users (our > bread and butter), can have an official place to help sponsor features > of the system and so on. All this is more than a website. Someone posted > pictures of the PG booth at a show recently. It was nice, but there was > this one sad guy shrouded in darkness -- I felt depressed, because > that's how PG advocacy felt. I am not opposed to the idea of a non-profit organization similar to those that run Apache, XFree86, etc. I think it would take some work to do, and there may need to be some debate to iron out how this would work. But I am not sure that it is the only or even the best way. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Jeff Eckermann wrote: > > Isn't this what books are supposed to be for? i.e. to > fill in the gaps or provide the coverage, tips, howtos > etc. etc. that no-one really expects formal > documentation to cover. There are quite a few good > books out there, including two accessible online, with > links from the www.postgresql.org page (that must have > been modesty on your part ;-) ). Bruce's book, even > referring to an outdated version of PostgreSQL, still > gives a pretty good introduction for an SQL newbie in > how to get started. > > We have plenty of good stuff already out there, the > issue here appears to be more one of presentation and > organization. > > But, do these things have set exercises, relevant to the material, to ensure the reader understands the material? It is one thing to present a worked example, but, without getting a student to perform an exercise "create a database named supermarket, with tables groceryline and socklevel and itemprice, input 100 stock lines of varying stock levels, and of varying values, then create a report of the total value of the stock, and a report listing the stock lines with an item value over $5.00, and the total value of stock with item prices over $5.00", to show whether the student actually understands what to do, and how to do it, so the student can realise whether the student needs to go back and cover the material again, or whether the student can move on. To give a person knowledge, increases the person's memorised information; to require the person to use the knowledge, makes the person learn, and increases the person's skills. That is why I have repeatedly referred to the need for a "Teach Yourself PostgreSQL in 21 Days" book, to have such exercises, etc. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Martin Marques wrote: > > I haven't read the latest review of Bruce's book, but I can recall that the > original version started with: > > In this chapter, you will learn how to connect to the database server and > issue simple commands to the POSTGRESQL server. > > At this point, the book makes the following assumptions: > > * You have installed POSTGRESQL. > * You have a running POSTGRESQL server. > * You are configured as a POSTGRESQL user. > * You have a database called test. > ========================================================================== > > Now, Joshua was talking about getting PostgreSQL started, which Bruce assums > you already know. > > Anyway, I must admit that if you have PG installed and running, which is very > simple on normal Linux distributions, this book gives a huge boost to any > newbie. > > And, if a person did not already have it installed and set up, would the person then have not been required to find elsewhere, how to do those? -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote: > Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:44:48 +0700 > From: Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com> > To: Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@postgresql.org> > Cc: aspire420@hotpop.com, pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org, > pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > > <snip> > In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near or > long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists. Firebird > is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to > learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being as > easy to use as PostgreSQL. > > I suggest that it is a bit premature, to suggest that MySQL will disappear, and that PostgreSQL will still exist. Each does have its advantages, and, people develop things in parallel in the two different systems. For example, on the perl-gedcom list, people have developed, in parallel, genealogy database systems that they use, some using MySQL, some using PostgreSQL. People have their preferences, as some still use (or require to be used) MS Access, or Foxpro, or SQL-Server, or Informix, etc. Does PostgreSQL yet allow the user or programmer, to determine where the database will be stored? From memory, that has (or had) been a shortcoming of PodtgreSQL; there was no control as to where the database was stored, so that, for example, from my understanding, where an ISP allowed PostgreSQL usage for web sites, all of the PostgreSQL databases of all the ISP account holders, were stored in the same location, which was not under the account-holder's home directory; similarly, if I, on a LAN, create a database InventoryThing, as user frednerk, and, create a database AccountsThing, as user joebloggs, my understanding is that both databases will be stored in a central PostgreSQL repository, rather than under each user home directory. Thus, if the frednerk home directory and everything under it, is backed up by frednerk, it appears that InventoryThing is not backed up, and, similarly, with joebloggs and AccountsThing. Likewise with separate ISP accounts and any PostgreSQL databases that they have and use on their web sites. Clarification of whether my understanding is correct, would be appreciated. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> writes:
> Does PostgreSQL yet allow the user or programmer, to determine where the
> database will be stored?
You speak as though you think that would be a good idea.
In my mind, "where the database is stored" is not a matter for users,
nor for programmers, but for DBAs --- that is, the grunts who have to
worry about backup policies and suchlike. This is not an issue that
should be exposed at the SQL-command level, and therefore it does not
concern either users or database programmers.
That's not to say that we don't have work to do here. There's
considerable interest in developing "tablespace" features to help the
DBA manage his problems. But I absolutely will not buy into any
suggestion that user foo's tables must be stored in user foo's home
directory (even if I thought that Postgres user foo must correspond
to a local Unix user foo ... which I don't ...)
regards, tom lane
>Does it say that there is a limit? Yes surely there is one, which most likely >will depends on the Processor and OS you are running (64 bit or 32 bit), but >anyway, such log varchars wouldn't be that recommended, and maybe the TEXT >data type would be more suitable. If you are used to MySQL you're used to a maximum limit because of MySQL will set a limit. This kind of information is interesting if you're trying to understand PostgreSQL. FWIW, we already started to use text :-) B.
>However, a language like PHP is very different from an enterprise DB, so our >tutorial really doesn't help a newbie to databases understand how to USE >PostgreSQL. In order to do this, it would need to cover a bunch of other >topics as well, such as normalization, etc. The result would be something >that you probably would not want to include in your standard reference >manual. IMO normalization is something not specific for PostgreSQL. Although some individuals on this list seem to think otherwise, normalization is just as important when you're using MySQL. And even if you want to include that kind of information you could do this by linking to good information already online. There are several informative articles at both phpbuilder and devshed. But this would only be relevant if you're completely new to designing databases. B.
On Tuesday 30 December 2003 02:28, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >How would this differ from the existing Tutorial? > > Well, for one it would tell the user how to start postgresql ;) Like this? http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/PostgresQL101 It is linked from front page of techdocs.postgresql.org under name of Postgresql 101. Actually overall, I am thinking of some 2 page per concept on similar line but I think that is what we are talking about, right? And besides the general impression I got from this thread is that people need illustrations lot more than the project seems to anticipate. Am I off-mark here? Shridhar
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:07:23 -0500 > From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > To: Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> > Cc: pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > > Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> writes: > > Does PostgreSQL yet allow the user or programmer, to determine where the > > database will be stored? > > You speak as though you think that would be a good idea. > > In my mind, "where the database is stored" is not a matter for users, > nor for programmers, but for DBAs --- that is, the grunts who have to > worry about backup policies and suchlike. This is not an issue that > should be exposed at the SQL-command level, and therefore it does not > concern either users or database programmers. > > That's not to say that we don't have work to do here. There's > considerable interest in developing "tablespace" features to help the > DBA manage his problems. But I absolutely will not buy into any > suggestion that user foo's tables must be stored in user foo's home > directory (even if I thought that Postgres user foo must correspond > to a local Unix user foo ... which I don't ...) > > regards, tom lane > > This is where terminology becomes amusing. I meant the OS user, not the DBMS user, and I am not suggesting that DBMS users should be able to set where their tables are stored. All kinds of scenarios can arise; where the DBA and the developer are the same person, or, employed in the same department of the same company; where the DBA is employed by the company, and the developer is a contractor, or an employee of a contractor, and, as I previosuly mentioned, the scenario where an ISP, by hosting a web site with a database backend, has a database in the same holding area as is held all the databases of all of the ISP's clients who similarly have web sites with database backends. I would feel more confident about having a personal database "on the Internet"; a backend to my web site, if I knew that the database wasn't thrown into the same storage area as everyone of the ISP's other account holders, who also have the same DBMS database backends to their web sites. You never know what else is sharing the same storage area, or how safe your database is in there. It is a bit like having a cat; I would rather that the cat is with me, and that I know where it is, and what is happening with the cat, than having the cat locked away in a common room for all cats. Also, using that analogy, if I decide to move away with my cat, if it is with me, it is much simpler, and, cleaner, for me to simply pick up the cat and take it with me, than to try to find all of its bits, in a common room full of other cats. If I have a database system hosted by an ISP, and I try to move it to another ISP, surely, it would be simpler and cleaner, if I know that the database is stored in or under my home directory with the ISP, than having the database stored in a central repository with all of the other accounts holders' databases. There is also the issue of security, in the same context; I would feel much more secure, with a database hosted by an ISP, if I could control the privileges on the database directory, rather than allowing the ISP the control. Having been a user on various UNIX systems, I have seen some pretty lax security by systems administrators, and other users, and I am reminded of a senior university computing lecturer, who had the exam for an advanced computing unit, with such lax security that some students wandering through the system, found the exam, and, when they sat the exam, were surprisingly well prepared (no, I was not one of the students), resulting in all the students in the unit, having to re-sit the exam, and, other effects. A DBA should be able to control where a database is stored, and the level of security applicable to where the database is stored (privileges applicable to the directory, etc), and, as I have previously mentioned, it can occur that the DBA and the developer/programmer, are the same person. As an example, on a personal basis, if I ever get the number of names in my genealogy system, up to around 10,000, I would really want, if using a database backend (which would, I believe, be required), to have control over where the data is stored, so that I can easily and reliably back it up, as such data can be unreplaceable, and can take decades to accumulate. Similarly, for commercial databases, now that DVD's are writable, backing up a largish database, using OS backing up, would be much better, and moreso, witth the data for a database, stored where it is wanted. I am not sure whether it can all be done with symbolic links, to place PostgreSQL databases where a (OS, not DBMS) user or developer or DBA wants them to be stored, but I suggest that provision should exist for a person to determine where the person's (as owner of the database) database file(s) exist, for security, backing up, etc. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
Just to poke fun at MySQl: On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Bret Busby wrote: > ... > It is alright for people in this thread, to say "But they are MySQL, and > MySQL is not as powerful as PostgreSQL, so who cares what advantages > there are in MySQL", but MySQL appears to be more mature, as it has > things like standardised, formalised, structured, training courses and > secrtifications, and, the "Teach Yourself MySQL in 21 Days" book, and > that series of books has set exercises, etc, to aid the learning, > ... I thought MySQL was supposed to be easy to install, admin and use, how come it takes 21 days to learn it and needs formalised training courses? -- Nigel
> > secrtifications, and, the "Teach Yourself MySQL in 21 Days" book, and > > that series of books has set exercises, etc, to aid the learning, > > ... > >I thought MySQL was supposed to be easy to install, admin and use, how come it >takes 21 days to learn it and needs formalised training courses? Perhaps you didn't understand it correctly? Perhaps because not everyone is intelligent enough to learn MySQL in less then 21 days? I don't know that particular book myself but the book MySQL written by Paul DuBois took me much less then 21 days :-) I have yet to find a simular book about PostgreSQL.. IMO there's no valid reason for MySQL bashing. I'm not going to defend either one because that kind of discussion leads to nowhere. B.
>a contractor, or an employee of a contractor, and, as I previosuly >mentioned, the scenario where an ISP, by hosting a web site with a >database backend, has a database in the same holding area as is held all >the databases of all of the ISP's clients who similarly have web sites >with database backends. I have yet to see security issues from storing at the same place. >There is also the issue of security, in the same context; I would feel >much more secure, with a database hosted by an ISP, if I could control >the privileges on the database directory, rather than allowing the ISP >the control. An ISP can grant you that priv: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-grant.html Almost the same trick works with MySQL. >As an example, on a personal basis, if I ever get the number of names in >my genealogy system, up to around 10,000, I would really want, if using >a database backend (which would, I believe, be required), to have >control over where the data is stored, so that I can easily and reliably >back it up, as such data can be unreplaceable, and can take decades to >accumulate. If you're running MySQL look at something like mysqldump. When running PostgreSQL the information is here: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/backup.html >Similarly, for commercial databases, now that DVD's are writable, >backing up a largish database, using OS backing up, would be much >better, and moreso, witth the data for a database, stored where it is >wanted. Most running databases wouldn't like it if the backup is created with something like tar. IMO the best way is to use the tools provided with the product. You can create a dump with whatever tool provided and write that dump to CD-RW/DVD/whatever. >I am not sure whether it can all be done with symbolic links, to place >PostgreSQL databases where a (OS, not DBMS) user or developer or DBA >wants them to be stored, but I suggest that provision should exist for a >person to determine where the person's (as owner of the database) >database file(s) exist, for security, backing up, etc. And then you hit the hard limit set by quota :-) Even if you think you can do it yourself you will have to persuade your ISP/admin/whatever to create a symbolic link (even if that would be possible and what you want). B.
B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > IMO there's no valid reason for MySQL bashing. I'm not going to defend > either one because that kind of discussion leads to nowhere. How about pure entertainment? Or maybe because we don't have anything better to do on a Friday night because the one girl this year who actually said she would go out with us has stood us up? But were not bitter at all at that slut and she uses MySQL I just no it, I bet she's using it right now and laughing... LAUGHING at me... See it can be very therapeutic :)
El Mar 30 Dic 2003 02:49, Bret Busby escribió:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Martin Marques wrote:
> >
> > At this point, the book makes the following assumptions:
> >
> > * You have installed POSTGRESQL.
> > * You have a running POSTGRESQL server.
> > * You are configured as a POSTGRESQL user.
> > * You have a database called test.
> > =========================================================================
> >=
> >
> > Now, Joshua was talking about getting PostgreSQL started, which Bruce
> > assums you already know.
> >
> > Anyway, I must admit that if you have PG installed and running, which is
> > very simple on normal Linux distributions, this book gives a huge boost
> > to any newbie.
>
> And, if a person did not already have it installed and set up, would the
> person then have not been required to find elsewhere, how to do those?
The question then is: "How difficult is it for a newbie to get PostgreSQL
started on a RedHat, Fedora, Debian, Mandrake,... Linux?"
My answer is that it's not difficult at all, except if you are upgradeing, in
which case, you are not a newbie any more. :-)
--
09:21:01 up 34 days, 15:37, 2 users, load average: 0.82, 0.52, 0.46
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar'
Centro de Telematica | DBA, Programador, Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------
El Mar 30 Dic 2003 04:07, B. van Ouwerkerk escribió:
> >Does it say that there is a limit? Yes surely there is one, which most
> > likely will depends on the Processor and OS you are running (64 bit or 32
> > bit), but anyway, such log varchars wouldn't be that recommended, and
> > maybe the TEXT data type would be more suitable.
>
> If you are used to MySQL you're used to a maximum limit because of MySQL
> will set a limit.
> This kind of information is interesting if you're trying to understand
> PostgreSQL.
Well, maybe it's because I read some mails from Tom Lane discussing how
optimal varchar(300000) would be. :-)
--
09:25:01 up 34 days, 15:41, 2 users, load average: 0.05, 0.30, 0.38
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar'
Centro de Telematica | DBA, Programador, Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you have no control over the running postmasters, then where the files are stored gives you no advantage at all either for backup or security. Backing up physical files while the postmaster running is asking for it; this is explained every three days or so on the lists. (that should be part of some consent form for using PG...'I acknowledge that copying physical files while the postmaster is running is ineffective, will get me in trouble, and promote both moral degradation and tooth decay. Please don't ask.'). As for security...the data cluster is created with 700 permissions, owned by the postgres super-user, and the postmaster will not even start up if the directory permissions are set otherwise. Personally, I wouldn't trust a sysad/dba at an ISP who gave me sufficient rights to create, say, Oracle tablespaces willy-nilly. That would fit your example of lazy and lax administration. (Apologies for using the 'O' word...) We're back into the mindset of an RDBMS being thought of as some sort of FoxPro-on-steroids thing. That is not what Postgres, Oracle, Sybase, etc. are. On Dec 30, 2003, at 5:40 AM, Bret Busby wrote: > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:07:23 -0500 >> From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> >> To: Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> >> Cc: pgsql-advocay@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org >> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? >> >> Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> writes: >>> Does PostgreSQL yet allow the user or programmer, to determine where >>> the >>> database will be stored? >> >> You speak as though you think that would be a good idea. >> >> In my mind, "where the database is stored" is not a matter for users, >> nor for programmers, but for DBAs --- that is, the grunts who have to >> worry about backup policies and suchlike. This is not an issue that >> should be exposed at the SQL-command level, and therefore it does not >> concern either users or database programmers. >> >> That's not to say that we don't have work to do here. There's >> considerable interest in developing "tablespace" features to help the >> DBA manage his problems. But I absolutely will not buy into any >> suggestion that user foo's tables must be stored in user foo's home >> directory (even if I thought that Postgres user foo must correspond >> to a local Unix user foo ... which I don't ...) >> >> regards, tom lane >> >> > > This is where terminology becomes amusing. > > I meant the OS user, not the DBMS user, and I am not suggesting that > DBMS users should be able to set where their tables are stored. > > All kinds of scenarios can arise; where the DBA and the developer are > the same person, or, employed in the same department of the same > company; where the DBA is employed by the company, and the developer is > a contractor, or an employee of a contractor, and, as I previosuly > mentioned, the scenario where an ISP, by hosting a web site with a > database backend, has a database in the same holding area as is held > all > the databases of all of the ISP's clients who similarly have web sites > with database backends. > > I would feel more confident about having a personal database "on the > Internet"; a backend to my web site, if I knew that the database wasn't > thrown into the same storage area as everyone of the ISP's other > account > holders, who also have the same DBMS database backends to their web > sites. You never know what else is sharing the same storage area, or > how > safe your database is in there. It is a bit like having a cat; I would > rather that the cat is with me, and that I know where it is, and what > is > happening with the cat, than having the cat locked away in a common > room > for all cats. Also, using that analogy, if I decide to move away with > my > cat, if it is with me, it is much simpler, and, cleaner, for me to > simply pick up the cat and take it with me, than to try to find all of > its bits, in a common room full of other cats. If I have a database > system hosted by an ISP, and I try to move it to another ISP, surely, > it > would be simpler and cleaner, if I know that the database is stored in > or under my home directory with the ISP, than having the database > stored > in a central repository with all of the other accounts holders' > databases. > > There is also the issue of security, in the same context; I would feel > much more secure, with a database hosted by an ISP, if I could control > the privileges on the database directory, rather than allowing the ISP > the control. Having been a user on various UNIX systems, I have seen > some pretty lax security by systems administrators, and other users, > and > I am reminded of a senior university computing lecturer, who had the > exam for an advanced computing unit, with such lax security that some > students wandering through the system, found the exam, and, when they > sat the exam, were surprisingly well prepared (no, I was not one of the > students), resulting in all the students in the unit, having to re-sit > the exam, and, other effects. A DBA should be able to control where a > database is stored, and the level of security applicable to where the > database is stored (privileges applicable to the directory, etc), and, > as I have previously mentioned, it can occur that the DBA and the > developer/programmer, are the same person. > > As an example, on a personal basis, if I ever get the number of names > in > my genealogy system, up to around 10,000, I would really want, if using > a database backend (which would, I believe, be required), to have > control over where the data is stored, so that I can easily and > reliably > back it up, as such data can be unreplaceable, and can take decades to > accumulate. > > Similarly, for commercial databases, now that DVD's are writable, > backing up a largish database, using OS backing up, would be much > better, and moreso, witth the data for a database, stored where it is > wanted. > > I am not sure whether it can all be done with symbolic links, to place > PostgreSQL databases where a (OS, not DBMS) user or developer or DBA > wants them to be stored, but I suggest that provision should exist for > a > person to determine where the person's (as owner of the database) > database file(s) exist, for security, backing up, etc. > > -- > Bret Busby > Armadale > West Australia > .............. > > "So once you do know what the question actually is, > you'll know what the answer means." > - Deep Thought, > Chapter 28 of > "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: > A Trilogy In Four Parts", > written by Douglas Adams, > published by Pan Books, 1992 > .................................................... > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to > majordomo@postgresql.org > -------------------- Andrew Rawnsley President The Ravensfield Digital Resource Group, Ltd. (740) 587-0114 www.ravensfield.com
I have previously made my viewpoint known regarding the need for training docs separate from the main docs.
Regarding views: Think single point of maintenance. Here are a few examples:
1: You have a complex query which is run with different restrictions in the WHERE clause. You can set up a view to make maintenance easier, so you avoid duplication of effort.
2: You have an app that expects data to be presented in a different way. You can use a view to do this.
You are right, that a view can do just what a select statement does, but particularly for extremely complex data manipulations, they are very helpful.
Here is another example:
Imagine that I have a complex database where I store historical changes to a hotel and reservations. I can then use a view to look at calculated vacancy rates. Then the vacancy rate view can be manipulated in various ways as if it were a table. Often the simple examples don't show as much as the examples that are much harder to do without a view.
Stored Procs are much the same. The advantages of stored procs are:
1) For repeated queries based on other queries, less network latency buildup.
2) Stored procs can be used from any frontend, so if a function is generally useful you might want to put it there.
Personally I think that the docs are great (especially so with 7.4). Of course they are aimed at experienced admins, so it is easier to find things if you have a basic understanding of the RDBMS to start with. Of course things can always be improved, but I am opposed to adding cruft to the core documentation. Let's keep these things friendly towards experienced users so that we can WORK efficiently. However, Ericson does have a point, that the docs are NOT adequate if you are new to PostgreSQL and have only used MySQL or MS Access. There have been many ideas on how to resolve this issue, but I say that it should be resolved outside the core docs. The example of Python has been used, with an in-depth tutorial separate from the main docs. That way, an experienced user can discard the tutorial. I have argued elsewhere that a separate curriculum should be maintained, but I also understand that that will not happen overnight. My suggestion at the moment is to break the tutorial off so that it is not part of the main docs (I am not satisfied that it is large enough to really fill its purpose) and maintain it separately. I would then look at how to improve the tutorial. Hint out there to Ericson and others. The Reference Manual section of SQL commands is the part of the manual I use most. Procedural language sections also are used much around here :-) Best Wishes, Chris Travers
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 09:23:21AM -0300, Martin Marques wrote: > El Mar 30 Dic 2003 02:49, Bret Busby escribió: > > And, if a person did not already have it installed and set up, would the > > person then have not been required to find elsewhere, how to do those? > > The question then is: "How difficult is it for a newbie to get PostgreSQL > started on a RedHat, Fedora, Debian, Mandrake,... Linux?" It may be very simple for you and me, but remember that nowadays the Linux distros come with "ident sameuser" authentication preconfigured. Someone, somewhere, has to tell them to create a database for themselves and how to do that, and that they need to use the postgres user to do it. It's not rocket science, but for a true newbie it's impossible (those guys rarely read manuals, remember). -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) Oh, oh, las chicas galacianas, lo harán por las perlas, ¡Y las de Arrakis por el agua! Pero si buscas damas Que se consuman como llamas, ¡Prueba una hija de Caladan! (Gurney Halleck)
From: "B. van Ouwerkerk" <bvo@atz.nl>: > I still don't find it. I know you can do a varchar(255) but what is the > maximum PG will allow? Is there a maximum? > In short, how much can I put into the field before it breaks. It is not in the manual because in this case it probably doesn't matter. Check the FAQ. I believe that the maximum in a field in around 1GB. More text than I have to store ;-) This is more of a backend-related issue, and perhaps the limits could be handled in the introduction of the datatypes section. > I know a fair bit of SQL, just wanne know more about PG. Next year I will > start shopping at the nearest bookstore to see what they have on PG.. > Hopefully there is a book that compares to the book MySQL but then for PG.. Look for Bruce's book. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
At 20:00 30-12-2003 +0700, Chris Travers wrote: >Personally I think that the docs are great (especially so with 7.4). Of >course they are aimed at experienced admins, so it is easier to find things >if you have a basic understanding of the RDBMS to start with. Of course >things can always be improved, but I am opposed to adding cruft to the core >documentation. Let's keep these things friendly towards experienced users >so that we can WORK efficiently. IMO you can have both. How much would it hurt if there was a bit more information? Or a link to a related topic (as someone else suggested before). If I think about using a certain PHP function I might want to double check on the exact syntax or to look at the minimum version required. So I go to the PHP.net website and quickly look at it.. but a newcomer might spend quite some time on the same page.. The same could become true for the PostgreSQL docs I gues. Meaning I will read a bit longer on the same page then you. But only until I have assimilated the information.. All I would ask is a bit more information in the docs then found at present, add information where it currently stops without talking to much :-) I'm quite sure there are enough knowledgeable persons around to fill in the gaps found at present. But perhaps the interactive version of the docs might serve a great perpose here. B.
"Bret Busby" <bret@busby.net> Wrote: > On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote: > > In short, I do not see MySQL as any sort of threat to PostgreSQL, near or > > long-term. PostgreSQL will continue when MySQL no longer exists. Firebird > > is a more serious competitor long-term, though I found it to be hard to > > learn when compared to PostgreSQL. It has a long way to go before being as > > easy to use as PostgreSQL. > > > > > > I suggest that it is a bit premature, to suggest that MySQL will > disappear, and that PostgreSQL will still exist. > Ok, fair enough, and since it is GPL'd when it is no longer maintained, it will still exist ;-). One of the things that makes MySQL different than, say, Nautilus is the fact that you have client libs licensed under the GPL. Unless MySQL AB decides to change this, we will have a strong advantage, and I don't see this changing anytime soon. But I still think that MySQL is more likely to become non-viable than PostgreSQL... MySQL is not helping their case much (now that PHP will not enable MySQL by default anymore due to licensing issues). > Each does have its advantages, and, people develop things in parallel in > the two different systems. I have developed systems that support both. I understand what you mean. > > For example, on the perl-gedcom list, people have developed, in > parallel, genealogy database systems that they use, some using MySQL, > some using PostgreSQL. People have their preferences, as some still use > (or require to be used) MS Access, or Foxpro, or SQL-Server, or > Informix, etc. > > Does PostgreSQL yet allow the user or programmer, to determine where the > database will be stored? I think you mean DBA rather than user or programmer. Tablespaces are in the works and will allow finer tuning of database storage. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
--- Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Jeff Eckermann wrote: > > > > > Isn't this what books are supposed to be for? i.e. > to > > fill in the gaps or provide the coverage, tips, > howtos > > etc. etc. that no-one really expects formal > > documentation to cover. There are quite a few > good > > books out there, including two accessible online, > with > > links from the www.postgresql.org page (that must > have > > been modesty on your part ;-) ). Bruce's book, > even > > referring to an outdated version of PostgreSQL, > still > > gives a pretty good introduction for an SQL newbie > in > > how to get started. > > > > We have plenty of good stuff already out there, > the > > issue here appears to be more one of presentation > and > > organization. > > > > > > But, do these things have set exercises, relevant to > the material, to > ensure the reader understands the material? > > It is one thing to present a worked example, but, > without getting a > student to perform an exercise "create a database > named supermarket, > with tables groceryline and socklevel and itemprice, > input 100 stock > lines of varying stock levels, and of varying > values, then create a > report of the total value of the stock, and a report > listing the stock > lines with an item value over $5.00, and the total > value of stock with > item prices over $5.00", to show whether the student > actually > understands what to do, and how to do it, so the > student can realise > whether the student needs to go back and cover the > material again, or > whether the student can move on. > > To give a person knowledge, increases the person's > memorised > information; to require the person to use the > knowledge, makes the > person learn, and increases the person's skills. > > That is why I have repeatedly referred to the need > for a "Teach Yourself > PostgreSQL in 21 Days" book, to have such exercises, > etc. > My post was more a response to the suggestion that the core docs should be expanded to encompass more "howto" stuff. You are right, there is a need for some self learning tool (speaking as someone who is almost entirely self taught on PostgreSQL and computing in general), and I am not aware of any existing book which addresses that need. A problem is that much of what a newbie needs to learn is not PostgreSQL specific, much of it comes down to generic SQL and RDBMS functionality. Should we try to replicate the existing masses of material on that? For example, I first learned SQL from the "SQL in 21 Days" book, which gave a good general introduction, almost all of it directly applicable to PostgreSQL. I even found the introduction to Oracle pl/sql to be valuable as a quick start on pl/pgsql. Maybe we need some more suggestions from people about what they would have liked to have had when they first got started with PostgreSQL, and get some ideas from that. I was happy with the existing resources, but I am not most people. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003 http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 23:41:22 -0000, John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw@wardbrook.com> wrote: > Actually, sometimes these questions will be postgres specific, and this is > where the docs are too light. > > An example is an update statement using values from a correlated subquery. > Here's example code in pgsql: > > update PHOTO.WPImage > set WPImageStateID = 3, > Width = WPImageHeader.Width, > Height = WPImageHeader.Height, > ContentType = WPImageHeader.ContentType, > ContentLength = WPImageHeader.ContentLength > where WPImage.WDResourceID = WPImageHeader.WDResourceID > and WPImage.WDResourceID = pResourceID > and WPImage.WPSizeTypeID = 0; > > In Oracle this might be written: > > update PHOTO.WPImage i > set WPImageStateID = 3, > (Width, Height, ContentType, ContentLength) = ( > select Width, Height, ContentType, ContentLength > from PHOTO.WPImageHeader ih > where ih.WDResourceID = i.WDResourceID) > where WPImage.WDResourceID = pResourceID > and WPImage.WPSizeTypeID = 0; > > You'll notice that the syntax is entirely different, and very relevant for > inclusion in the docs for each database's update statement. The Postgres example uses a join instead of subselects. You could have used subselects in postgres, but because there is currently not a way to set more than one column at a time from one subselect, you would have to repeat the subselect 4 times. I am not convinced that this needs to be documented in the section on the update statement. This is something that would belong in an oracle to postgres conversion guide. > I've mentioned it before but here it is again, contrast this explanation > of the UPDATE command in postgres with Oracle's explanation. Which one > would explain how to make use of a correlated subquery without resorting > to more googling or the list? > > postgres: http://www.postgres.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-update.html > > Oracle: http://miami.int.gu.edu.au/dbs/7016/a85397/state27a.htm#2067717 > > My point is not so much that the docs are difficult for newbies (and they > probably are), but that they just lack sufficient meat which really ought > to be included. I still don't see that there needs to be a lot more added to the postgres update command documentation. The main thing missing is links to the syntax definitions for things like from list, condition and expression. Currently you just have to know that the syntax for from items and conditions is described with the select documentation and that expression syntax is covered in the value expressions chapters under sql syntax.
rwelty@averillpark.net says... > > Check http://firebird.sourceforge.net/ > note that Firebird (the Interbase spinoff) used the name before > Firebird (the Mozilla spinoff) did. The Mozilla people have undertaken to change this, but are dragging their feet, much to the disgust of the real Firebirders. Paul... > richard -- plinehan y_a_h_o_o and d_o_t com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post. "XML avoids the fundamental question of what we should do, by focusing entirely on how we should do it." quote from http://www.metatorial.com
johnsw@wardbrook.com says... > As long time Oracle developer recently converted to Postgres, I think that > you would all do better to use Oracle as your benchmark instead of MySQL. <... Theme development snipped> Very good post and point! Paul... -- plinehan y_a_h_o_o and d_o_t com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post. "XML avoids the fundamental question of what we should do, by focusing entirely on how we should do it." quote from http://www.metatorial.com
RE "The main thing missing is links to the syntax definitions for things like from list, condition and expression. Currently you just have to know that the syntax for from items and conditions is described with the select documentation and that expression syntax is covered in the value expressions chapters under sql syntax." Actually just having the links would be a great help (provided it took you to the relevant section of the page rather than the start). A fast full text index of the docs, and related material online would help enormously - I see that something is in the pipline... Hooray! John Bruno Wolff III said: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 23:41:22 -0000, > John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw@wardbrook.com> wrote: >> Actually, sometimes these questions will be postgres specific, and this is >> where the docs are too light. >> An example is an update statement using values from a correlated subquery. >> Here's example code in pgsql: >> update PHOTO.WPImage >> set WPImageStateID = 3, >> Width = WPImageHeader.Width, >> Height = WPImageHeader.Height, >> ContentType = WPImageHeader.ContentType, >> ContentLength = WPImageHeader.ContentLength >> where WPImage.WDResourceID = WPImageHeader.WDResourceID >> and WPImage.WDResourceID = pResourceID >> and WPImage.WPSizeTypeID = 0; >> In Oracle this might be written: >> update PHOTO.WPImage i >> set WPImageStateID = 3, >> (Width, Height, ContentType, ContentLength) = ( >> select Width, Height, ContentType, ContentLength >> from PHOTO.WPImageHeader ih >> where ih.WDResourceID = i.WDResourceID) >> where WPImage.WDResourceID = pResourceID >> and WPImage.WPSizeTypeID = 0; >> You'll notice that the syntax is entirely different, and very relevant for >> inclusion in the docs for each database's update statement. > > The Postgres example uses a join instead of subselects. You could have used subselects in postgres, but because there is currently not a way to set more than one column at a time from one subselect, you would have to repeat the subselect 4 times. > > I am not convinced that this needs to be documented in the section on the update statement. This is something that would belong in an oracle to postgres conversion guide. > >> I've mentioned it before but here it is again, contrast this explanation >> of the UPDATE command in postgres with Oracle's explanation. Which one would explain how to make use of a correlated subquery without resorting >> to more googling or the list? >> postgres: >> http://www.postgres.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-update.html Oracle: http://miami.int.gu.edu.au/dbs/7016/a85397/state27a.htm#2067717 My point is not so much that the docs are difficult for newbies (and they >> probably are), but that they just lack sufficient meat which really ought >> to be included. > > I still don't see that there needs to be a lot more added to the postgres > update command documentation. The main thing missing is links to the syntax definitions for things like from list, condition and expression. Currently you just have to know that the syntax for from items and conditions > is described with the select documentation and that expression syntax is covered in the value expressions chapters under sql syntax. >
Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> writes:
> I still don't see that there needs to be a lot more added to the postgres
> update command documentation. The main thing missing is links to the
> syntax definitions for things like from list, condition and expression.
This is in part because before 7.4, those things were in separate
"books" and so you couldn't easily make a cross-reference to them.
Now that we build the docs as one big book, cross-references are easy.
It's just a matter of someone taking the time to go through and add
them. Do I hear a volunteer?
BTW, I'd not be in favor of separating out the Tutorial into a separate
document again, precisely because we would lose the ability for it to
easily cross-reference the main docs.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 12:20:03 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> writes: > > I still don't see that there needs to be a lot more added to the postgres > > update command documentation. The main thing missing is links to the > > syntax definitions for things like from list, condition and expression. > > This is in part because before 7.4, those things were in separate > "books" and so you couldn't easily make a cross-reference to them. > Now that we build the docs as one big book, cross-references are easy. > It's just a matter of someone taking the time to go through and add > them. Do I hear a volunteer? I will do this for the UPDATE command to get some feedback and assuming that goes well, I am willing to go through the commands section of the manual looking for other appropiate cross references.
Hello I had queried about the issue before and tried to google for solution. But still I am not able to find windows version of libpq. I installed postgresql ( not from source though ) using cygwin. It installed the header files needed for pg development. It even installed libpq.a but not libpq.lib ( is libpq.a windows compliant ). Where can I get precompiled copy of latest libpq.lib. Also this may be off list....I downloaded the source of pgAdmin III ( to know live examples of working PG C API ). The project needs some libs called ssleay.lib etc. Are these pg specific or for what? Cant seem to compile it. I am using WinXP Pro with VC++ 6.0. Regards Karam __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
Quoting DeJuan Jackson <djackson@speedfc.com>: > B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > > > IMO there's no valid reason for MySQL bashing. I'm not going to defend > > either one because that kind of discussion leads to nowhere. > > How about pure entertainment? Or maybe because we don't have anything > better to do on a Friday night because the one girl this year who > actually said she would go out with us has stood us up? But were not > bitter at all at that slut and she uses MySQL I just no it, I bet she's > using it right now and laughing... LAUGHING at me... > > See it can be very therapeutic :) LOL- yea, that was actually! Seriously though- another sub-text of this thread **is** defending how MySQL documentation is "better" than PostgreSQL's. Of course many have responded with various opinions as to why it is not "better". I personally don't see much weight in the arguement because comparisons by nature are subjective. There's everyone from the person whose has just heard what SQL stands for to the person that can receit the specifications. Couple that with the fact that MySQL just isn't on the same level yet to be making the comparison and what you have is a bit of a mess. I'm not sure how this "mess" gets cleaned up but like Tom indicated earlier in this thread, this is open source so if you want something done that is not so high up on the list, you're probably going to have to do it yourself or at least in a smaller group. It seems for the MySQL folks (which I was for a very short time) I would say that a study of SQL itself might be warranted. It just really is not appropriate to duplicate the basics for which there is a tremendous amount of information online already You should not have a problem finding something that you like. I learned PG by studying SQL and finding some examples/tutorials online and at first trying them in mSQL, MySQL (which was difficult because it wasn't very standard) and later in PostgreSQL. Once I understood SQL and actually played around with some products I found having a reference (like PG's docs) to be my bible. Those of you who are new to the product don't realize have far the docs have come from the 6.x days nor does it really matter to you when you need a question answered at 2am. Thats the rub!. If you have grown with one culture, you really can't come to another one and expect to be at the same point. In a sense you have to start over but with your mind open to a new way of doing things. This is very similar to how people dissatified with M$ come over to Linux or the Mac world. They are very anxious to do away with the old and get on with the new. The problem is that they forget there is a learning curve- easier or hard. Lets face it, a lot of people don't like to "learn" so if something new is not "easy" to do in the long run it won't go far. Just look how new products are marketed on TV. Not to say that that is the right way to do things- just to say that it is done. This is always going to be a the balancing act for good products- marketability vs. functionality I apologize now if this seems like a dig at MySQL users- it truely is not but I do get the sense that the issue with PG is really more an issue with understanding SQL and RDBMS' in general. -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 17:20, Tom Lane wrote: > Now that we build the docs as one big book, cross-references are easy. > It's just a matter of someone taking the time to go through and add > them. Do I hear a volunteer? I'll have a go at it. Gradually... -- Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C ======================================== "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away." Matthew 5:42
I want to use one subject line to discuss many different
topics on this mailing list. Which subject should I use?
Is there a prize for longest thread on this list?
- MySQL has Java support in alpha
- MySQL has documentation that newbies like
- MySQL features are alpha and 2 years away
- PostgreSQL already has MySQLs proposed features
- PostgreSQL stored procedures rock
- Can we have nested transactions, please?
- We like everything about MySQL (docs, website, 3rd party tools)
except the database
- PostgreSQL is more robust and mature
- MySQL developers are doing a 180 turn from their "you don't need
that" stance
- PostgreSQL needs volunteers for documentation enhancements
- Somebody on the list missed a date with a MySQL girlfriend
- Elephants never forget and can step on dolphins
- ...
Oh nevermind, I'll just use 'Is my MySQL Gaining?' for a subject.
Yeah, that works.
----------
Dante
Re: Improving/Adding to Docs (was Is my MySQL Gaining ? or someone missed a date with a dolphin)
From
Jason Godden
Date:
On Wednesday 31 December 2003 05:23, Oliver Elphick wrote: > On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 17:20, Tom Lane wrote: > > Now that we build the docs as one big book, cross-references are easy. > > It's just a matter of someone taking the time to go through and add > > them. Do I hear a volunteer? > > I'll have a go at it. Gradually... I'm with Oliver - I'll be happy to put my name down for doing a few sections in the docs.. just name them rgds, J
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Martin Marques wrote: > > > > > > Now, Joshua was talking about getting PostgreSQL started, which Bruce > > > assums you already know. > > > > > > Anyway, I must admit that if you have PG installed and running, which is > > > very simple on normal Linux distributions, this book gives a huge boost > > > to any newbie. > > > > And, if a person did not already have it installed and set up, would the > > person then have not been required to find elsewhere, how to do those? > > The question then is: "How difficult is it for a newbie to get PostgreSQL > started on a RedHat, Fedora, Debian, Mandrake,... Linux?" > > My answer is that it's not difficult at all, except if you are upgradeing, in > which case, you are not a newbie any more. :-) > > Do you answer that, as a "newbie", or, as someone who has done it before? And, in using the term "newbie", do you refer to a person who is new to Linux, or, new to PostgreSQL? If a person has no experience with PostgreSQL, is that person expected to already know how to instal, and set up, PostgreSQL, pgaccess, pgadmin, etc, without any instructions? I think not. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
D. Dante Lorenso wrote: > I want to use one subject line to discuss many different > topics on this mailing list. Which subject should I use? > Is there a prize for longest thread on this list? > > - MySQL has Java support in alpha > - MySQL has documentation that newbies like > - MySQL features are alpha and 2 years away > - PostgreSQL already has MySQLs proposed features > - PostgreSQL stored procedures rock > - Can we have nested transactions, please? > - We like everything about MySQL (docs, website, 3rd party tools) > except the database > - PostgreSQL is more robust and mature > - MySQL developers are doing a 180 turn from their "you don't need > that" stance > - PostgreSQL needs volunteers for documentation enhancements > - Somebody on the list missed a date with a MySQL girlfriend > - Elephants never forget and can step on dolphins > - ... > > Oh nevermind, I'll just use 'Is my MySQL Gaining?' for a subject. > Yeah, that works. I think that sums the thread up nicely. :-) -- 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
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 10:02:25AM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote: > It seems to concern MySQL now at least. They have changed their minds on > many enterprise features that PostgreSQL has for years. The strategy of > misguiding people like "you don't need foreign keys", "you don't need > stored procedures", "yadda yadda triggers", "blah blah views" didn't > work forever. So they have to add or propose those features one by one. Anyone have a copy of their older docs where they argued that row level locking was bad and that you should only do table level locking? :) -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant jim@nasby.net Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
On Tuesday 30 December 2003 06:50, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > I don't know that particular book myself but the book MySQL written by Paul > DuBois took me much less then 21 days :-) I have yet to find a simular book > about PostgreSQL.. > uh... I would have to think that Korry Douglas's book titled "PostgreSQL" from the same publisher must be somewhat similar. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0735712573/qid=1072831905/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-2846574-6863256 Robert Treat -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Maybe this is where the advocacy site and community can help the > most. We could list these utilities that only support MySQL > and ask for members of the community to contact the developers > to help them support Postgres. Now, there are a lot of these > types of apps, most of them aren't worth downloading let alone > fixing, but unfortunately I suspect this preventing a lot of > people from using Postgres. This has been on my todo list since someone mentioned something similar at last year's Postgres BOF at OSCON, but I have not gotten any further than designing it on paper. I will get to it eventually, but I have a lot of other projects, so if anyone wants to help out, please let me know and I'll share what I have so far. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200312302056 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQE/8izpvJuQZxSWSsgRAqJ6AJ9sBhTg592jIZTKJlVDtiI7/VJ7ngCg5VOS i1j9wNeqI3kcuF+BwdMZxuY= =NWOL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > Maybe this is where the advocacy site and community can help the > > most. We could list these utilities that only support MySQL > > and ask for members of the community to contact the developers > > to help them support Postgres. Now, there are a lot of these > > types of apps, most of them aren't worth downloading let alone > > fixing, but unfortunately I suspect this preventing a lot of > > people from using Postgres. > > This has been on my todo list since someone mentioned something > similar at last year's Postgres BOF at OSCON, but I have not > gotten any further than designing it on paper. I will get to > it eventually, but I have a lot of other projects, so if anyone > wants to help out, please let me know and I'll share what I have > so far. I'm interested in helping out where I can. Let me know what you've got and I'll try to help. Cheers, Chris -- Christopher Murtagh Enterprise Systems Administrator ISR / Web Communications Group McGill University Montreal, Quebec Canada Tel.: (514) 398-3122 Fax: (514) 398-2017
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Nigel J. Andrews wrote: > Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:12:05 +0000 (GMT) > From: Nigel J. Andrews <nandrews@investsystems.co.uk> > To: "pgsql-general@postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ? > > > Just to poke fun at MySQl: > > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Bret Busby wrote: > > ... > > It is alright for people in this thread, to say "But they are MySQL, and > > MySQL is not as powerful as PostgreSQL, so who cares what advantages > > there are in MySQL", but MySQL appears to be more mature, as it has > > things like standardised, formalised, structured, training courses and > > secrtifications, and, the "Teach Yourself MySQL in 21 Days" book, and > > that series of books has set exercises, etc, to aid the learning, > > ... > > I thought MySQL was supposed to be easy to install, admin and use, how come it > takes 21 days to learn it and needs formalised training courses? > > > -- > Nigel > So, in the absence of those benefits for PostgreSQL, all you can do is poke fun at a better offering? Have you read and worked through the book, as either a person who has not worked with MySQL or the Perl DBI, or the API's in the book, or as a person with no experience with databases? If not, how then can you say it should take more time or less time? Have you undertaken the MySQL certifications? If not, how can you say that they are not worthwhile? "Easy" is in the eye of the beholder, and, is affected by the depth into which a person goes. If you cannot see the advantages of formalised, structured, standardised training and certification, then I assume that you have no qualifications, and did not graduate from secondary school? Such things are generally implemented at secondary school and further education, and Informix and Oracle and Microsoft have such things, from my understanding. And, isn't passing secondary school level exams, easy? If not, perhaps, you should try it again, and again, until you can confidently pass. Some people find secondary school exams easy, others do not. Depending on where you were educated, most countries have had formalised, standardised, structured, education and certification at secopndary school, and, some kind of accreditation for technical college education and for university education. May be not, where you were educated. Instead of going out of your way to ridicule MySQL, perhaps you should instead, try to do what I have done; have a look at what MySQL has, that PostgreSQL has not, and, consider how it could benefit PostgreSQL. Unless, of course, you want for PostgreSQL to not be taken seriously, and instead, to be similarly an object of ridicule, as its community would appear unable to achieve anything other than ridiculing others. It is like some sections in the Linux community, who apparently feel that Linux has nothing to offer, and should not be taken serioulsy, so they devote their time and effort, to ridiculing Microsoft, instead of promoting the benefits of Linux, as they clearly believe that ridiculing Microsoft, can apparently hide their belief that Linux is not worthwhile in itself and that Linux has nothing to offer. If some want to similarly regard PostgreSQL, as being so worthless, that the best way to conceal its worthlessness, is to ridicule MySQL, then that is unfortunate, as I believe that PostgreSQL is supposed to be better than MySQL, it just happens to lack some of the maturity of MySQL, as indicated in my paragraph, quoted above. Oh, and, on that basis, remember the Beta video format? It was supposed to be far better than VHS. But, it disappeared because VHS had greater marketing. And, OS/2 was supposed to be far superior to MS Windows, but, similarly, the same fate befell that, and, similarly, with IBM PC-DOS and MS-DOS. As it was mentioned that PostgreSQL would be around, long after MySQL was dead and gone, perhaps not - perhaps, it may be the other way around. It all depends on whether the PostgreSQL community is prepared to learn from others - remember that quote? "Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to reapeat it". It would be unfortunate, for PostgreSQL to disappear, like the Beta video format, due to the PostgreSQL community not being willing to learn from others. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
> Have you undertaken the MySQL certifications? If not, how can you say > that they are not worthwhile? > I think what a lot of people forget is that certifications are meant to be a baseline. They are meant to allow an employer to say, "Hey this person at least has some idea of what they are doing." Also, specifically pertaining to many people on this list, certification is pointless. For them. There is a point in your professional life where a certification becomes "So What" and your resume should be enough. Frankly, if someone like Tom Lane came to me and said, "Hey I have 20 years experience with databases and I am a PostgreSQL core developer." My response would not be, "Do you have any certs?" and I would question the sanity, validity, and intelligence of any person who did. He has the experience and resume to back up his worth. > If you cannot see the advantages of formalised, structured, standardised > training and certification, then I assume that you have no > qualifications, and did not graduate from secondary school? Well this was just plain snobbish. There are benefits to secondary school but they do not pertain to each individual and it has been proven time and time again that secondary school (college) can actually hamper the minds, creativity and capabilities for a person to grown. Bill Gates, and Michael Dell come to mind. The above of course is not par for the course for everyone. Some people need to be taught, some can teach themselves, some can only teach themselves within one arena of talent, some are complete morons... it depends on the individual. > Such things > are generally implemented at secondary school and further education, and > Informix and Oracle and Microsoft have such things, from my > understanding. As someone who has passed the MS exams, you don't need them, they are joke. The A+ was more difficult than the memorize the side bars and select letter "C" testing that Microsoft offers. I can not speak to Informix or Oracle however. > Instead of going out of your way to ridicule MySQL, perhaps you should > instead, try to do what I have done; have a look at what MySQL has, > that PostgreSQL has not, and, consider how it could benefit PostgreSQL. > Unless, of course, you want for PostgreSQL to not be taken seriously, > and instead, to be similarly an object of ridicule, as its community > would appear unable to achieve anything other than ridiculing others. > I agree with you 100% here. MySQL has a lot of stuff over PostgreSQL, much of it is "perceived" benefit over actual benefit but perception is what it is all about in todays world. > Oh, and, on that basis, remember the Beta video format? It was supposed > to be far better than VHS. But, it disappeared because VHS had greater > marketing. And, OS/2 was supposed to be far superior to MS Windows, > but, similarly, the same fate befell that, and, similarly, with IBM > PC-DOS and MS-DOS. > Agreed. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > Have you undertaken the MySQL certifications? If not, how can you say > > that they are not worthwhile? > > > > I think what a lot of people forget is that certifications are meant > to be a baseline. They are meant to allow an employer to say, > "Hey this person at least has some idea of what they are doing." > > Also, specifically pertaining to many people on this list, certification > is pointless. For them. There is a point in your professional life > where a certification becomes "So What" and your resume should be > enough. > > Frankly, if someone like Tom Lane came to me and said, "Hey I have 20 > years experience with databases and I am a PostgreSQL core developer." > My response would not be, "Do you have any certs?" and I would > question the sanity, validity, and intelligence of any person who did. > He has the experience and resume to back up his worth. > > I think that we realise that someone like Tom Lane, or Bruce Momjian, would not need to worry about having to have things like certification, but, it must be remembered that not everyone is a recognised PostgreSQL guru, and, people are at different levels, regarding something like PostgreSQL. And, certification is subjective. I had not heard of some things, like Bernoulli's theorem, until I attended university, and my wife's younger brother has covered that with one of his primary school classes that he teaches. And, whereas in 1978, to become a laboratory assistant in New Zealand, required a Bachelor of Science, and, to become a laboratory assistant in Western Australia, required having passed a universities entrance exam at secondary school, or a technical college certificate, which was at about the same level as the universities entrance examination. That was due to different countries having different levels of difficulty in obtaining employment, and thus, employers being able to be selective to different degrees (no pun intended), due to differing employment market pressures. But, in both countries, having passed a universities entrance examination, meant the same, or similar, level of achievement had been completed, and, having completed a university degree, had the similar meaning. And, as you said in your first paragraph above, certifications are meant to be a baseline, and they give an employer good reason to believe that a person has some idea of what the person is doing, at the level of the certification. I know that people who have been in computing, from before computing degrees were dreamed of, probably do not need formal qualifications. However, as with software engineering, and computer science, degree courses and certifications, apart from completion being able to show that a person has achieved a particular standard, there is also the important aspect, that a person has been trained to do something (relatively) properly, in most cases. So, whilst people on the list, in discussing prospective content of trating courses and/or tutorials, have said that issues like normalisation, are too generic, and have no place in PostgreSQL training, if the formal, standardised, structured, training and certification that I have suggested, is implemented, and, it includes generic database stuff, like normalisation, then a prospective employer or hirer of a contractor, who may know something about databases, may be given the knowledge that a prospective employee, is unlikely to use postgreSQL to generate what is not much more than a flat-file database, when a database should be normalised. It goes to the issue of having an idea of the value of formal training and certification. In that, I mean a prospective employer, having an idea of the value. A good example of the need for formalised, standardised, structured, training and certification, is a man that I met several year sgo, who was the head of the maths and computing teaching department at one of the universities, here in Western Australia. He told me that he didn't believe in documenting programs. His area was computing, and he taught computer programming. Given the complexity of some computer programming languages, and the possible obscurity of some code, I hope that I never encounter the code of such a programmer. My wife has encountered undocumented databases, that she has had to modify, or, to migrate to another DBMS. Much time can be wasted through bad practices. To quote from a book that we have just acquired; "Troubleshooting SQL", by Forrest Houlette, 2001, (the book, whilst being SQL-Server-oriented, including material relating to SQL in general), in the chapter "Using Best Practices"; "Recently I had to perform maintenance on a program that was written by a guy who believed that you should have to struggle with code to understand it. He used one-character variable names, and as a consequence the cost of having a consultant come in to do maintenance on this program was considerably higher than it should have been. Let's do the math to illustrate the point. Average billable hours went to this company at $55 per hour. It took eight hours just to figure out what this piece of code did. That time cost the company $440. Keep in mind, all that happened during that time was that the consultant read the code and traced its thread of execution. It took two hours to make and test the change, time billable for a total of $110. If we assume that self-documenting code could have reduced the research time by half, the cost for making a minor change to the program drops by $220. The point is that self-documenting code reduces the cost of owning a software system considerably. Variable names figure into that cost reduction as a significant factor." So, good practices save time and money. Formalised, structured, standardised, training and certification, can increase the use of good practices, and, the confidence that good practices will be used, and, therefore, the confidence of efficiency. It is like the use of the CMMI assessment for software developers, be they small businesses, or corporations. I attended a .NET Community Of Practice seminar, a few months ago, and encountered a concept of which I was not previously aware, and I am not sure of the name for it; where a form allows SQL code instead of values, to be input into an input field in a form, allowing hacking into the database. The seminar warned against allowing such security breaches, and, mentioned various options and best ways of performing tasks. And, no, I am not of the .NET world, but, I learnt from the seminar. The inclusion of such issues, in formalised training, would also increase public confidence in software, which I understand to be one of the issues in software engineering. Formalised, standardised, structured, training and certification, can increase a prospective employer's confidence, both that an employee is more than just a hack-programmer, and, that the employee, apart from having a reasonable idea of what the employee is doing, does what the employee is supposed to do, properly, and most efficiently, producing the most reliable and efficient result. > > If you cannot see the advantages of formalised, structured, standardised > > training and certification, then I assume that you have no > > qualifications, and did not graduate from secondary school? > > Well this was just plain snobbish. There are benefits to secondary > school but they do not pertain to each individual and it has been > proven time and time again that secondary school (college) can actually > hamper the minds, creativity and capabilities for a person to grown. > Bill Gates, and Michael Dell come to mind. > > The above of course is not par for the course for everyone. Some people > need to be taught, some can teach themselves, some can only teach > themselves within one arena of talent, some are complete morons... it > depends on the individual. > It, surely, is all about the basic principle of public education; ensuring that people are educated to the same level(s). That is the great advantage - being educated to prescribed levels, nd, in knowing that a person has been educated to a particular leve, and therefore, attributing a particular level of skills to the person. > > > Such things > > are generally implemented at secondary school and further education, and > > Informix and Oracle and Microsoft have such things, from my > > understanding. > > As someone who has passed the MS exams, you don't need them, they are > joke. The A+ was more difficult than the memorize the side bars and > select letter "C" testing that Microsoft offers. > > Did you complete the MCAD and MCSD courses? -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
This is exactly why I got my Cisco CCNA qualification, not because I wanted to work with Cisco Routing equipment (because quite frankly I can't think of a duller subject) but because I could show potential employers/clients a well rounded skill set. This means I can appreciate implications broader than just my specialisation, and see the bigger picture, and also if pushed and there was no network engineer around I can get a router up and working again in an emergency situation (doesn't mean it'd be secure, just that it would route packets in the right general direction) Many people quoted the CCIE as the ultimate in qualifications. Cisco touted the CCIE course/exam as the best on the market, their claim was that there was no way to gain the qualification without real world experience and without knowing the subject in reality (i.e. you can't learn this just by absorbing a book) and had a big practicle exam you had to travel to Cisco for to complete the final stages, where they would lock you in a room with a bunch of kit and tell you to design and trouble shoot various networks. I don't know many CCIEs but at least 3 that I know all got their CCIE without ever laying hands on much more than a 4ft high stack of Sybex exam guides. I'm with Joshua on this one. I have been a consultant with Microsoft Operating Systems for sometime now, but never sat any of their exams, because my experience with Network Operating Systems speaks for itself. I've never had my abilities questioned by an employer (only by employment agency staff that don't know their subject and insist that no one can be put forward for this contract without at least an MCP????) not even by Microsoft when I did work for them. 0.02 cents T. Joshua D. Drake wrote: >I think what a lot of people forget is that certifications are meant >to be a baseline. They are meant to allow an employer to say, >"Hey this person at least has some idea of what they are doing." > > >
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Tony wrote: > > I have been a consultant with Microsoft Operating Systems for sometime > now, but never sat any of their exams, because my experience with > Network Operating Systems speaks for itself. I've never had my > abilities questioned by an employer (only by employment agency staff > that don't know their subject and insist that no one can be put forward > for this contract without at least an MCP????) not even by Microsoft > when I did work for them. > > Perhaps I should have clarified - in referring to Microsoft certifications, I was referring to the MCAD and MCSD certifications. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> Wrote: > BTW, I'd not be in favor of separating out the Tutorial into a separate > document again, precisely because we would lose the ability for it to > easily cross-reference the main docs. I understand your point. I was just thinking that the other documents are aimed at experienced users, and that the Tutorial as of now, does not seem to fill the need for a beginner. I understand that there is a lot of resistance here to including other generally useful information such as database design basics, as it would require more maintenance than simply putting PostgreSQL-only material in the docs. However, my question is this-- how much more work (long-term) would it take to maintain a set of links to resources we have no control over compared to including information such as this in the Tutorial? If the material is truly generic, then once we have a good set of resources then maintenance will not be a large issue, and cross-linking will be far easier because we have control over the documentation. It may be more work at first, but in the end, I think it will solve more problems than it creates. I guess the current format is good-- 4 books more or less integrated into one. BTW, I took another look at the tutorial, and it is far better than it was in previous versions. I still think it needs some expansion (and would be happy to help). Or perhaps we should add another document-- The Beginner's Guide, or would this be better handled by Techdocs? Best Wishes, Chris Travers
On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 11:42, Paul Ganainm wrote: > > rwelty@averillpark.net says... > > > > Check http://firebird.sourceforge.net/ > > > note that Firebird (the Interbase spinoff) used the name before > > Firebird (the Mozilla spinoff) did. > > > The Mozilla people have undertaken to change this, but are dragging > their feet, much to the disgust of the real Firebirders. > > Do you have a link that verifies this? I hadn't heard this at all and find it somewhat surprising given their disregard for the initial complaints... Robert Treat -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 05:40, Bret Busby wrote:
> I would feel more confident about having a personal database "on the
> Internet"; a backend to my web site, if I knew that the database wasn't
> thrown into the same storage area as everyone of the ISP's other account
> holders, who also have the same DBMS database backends to their web
> sites.
<snip>
> I am not sure whether it can all be done with symbolic links, to place
> PostgreSQL databases where a (OS, not DBMS) user or developer or DBA
> wants them to be stored, but I suggest that provision should exist for a
> person to determine where the person's (as owner of the database)
> database file(s) exist, for security, backing up, etc.
>
Find an ISP that will allow you to install a local copy of postgresql
for only your user account, then you will have full control from top to
bottom.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
If security is that big of a concern for you then you probably need to
consider not just the db, but any other source of access to the server
hackers might have, including but not limited to, cgi scripts etc in other
user directories that could be exploitable.
And so when security is that important, you likely want your own server,
whether local or co-located, only then can you control all the aspects of
the server that could lead to a breach.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry@greatgulfhomes.com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Robert Treat
> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 12:16 PM
> To: Bret Busby
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?
>
>
> On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 05:40, Bret Busby wrote:
> > I would feel more confident about having a personal
> database "on the
> > Internet"; a backend to my web site, if I knew that the
> database wasn't
> > thrown into the same storage area as everyone of the ISP's
> other account
> > holders, who also have the same DBMS database backends to their web
> > sites.
> <snip>
> > I am not sure whether it can all be done with symbolic
> links, to place
> > PostgreSQL databases where a (OS, not DBMS) user or
> developer or DBA
> > wants them to be stored, but I suggest that provision
> should exist for a
> > person to determine where the person's (as owner of the database)
> > database file(s) exist, for security, backing up, etc.
> >
>
> Find an ISP that will allow you to install a local copy of postgresql
> for only your user account, then you will have full control
> from top to
> bottom.
>
> Robert Treat
> --
> Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
>
>
> ---------------------------(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
>
Hi Casey, Casey Allen Shobe wrote: > Alex Satrapa (Sunday 28 December 2003 22:16) > >>Just convince your distribution's > > > My what? I don't use no stinkin' distribution :). > > >>postgresql package maintainer > > > That would be postgresql.org, I know not of binary packages. > > >>"suggests/recommends" portion of the package management metadata. > > > Tar does not provide such metadata, and a suggestion is hardly the same as an > inclusion. > > I'm just saying that it would be nice to include both CLI and GUI interfaces, > not to mention things like ODBC, as an alternative to the "minimalist" > download. No. NO! Definitively not. I really dont want GUI interfaces on a database server. We are not on Windows here where all servers better reside on the desktop... But you could provide a wget script for the configure file to fetch all sources one would need to install to his postgres server if desireable. Regards Tino
Tino Wildenhain (Thursday 01 January 2004 11:33) > > I'm just saying that it would be nice to include both CLI and GUI > > interfaces, not to mention things like ODBC, as an alternative to the > > "minimalist" download. > > No. NO! Definitively not. I really dont want GUI interfaces on a > database server. We are not on Windows here where all servers > better reside on the desktop... Obviously, and I did not mean to imply that the standalone distribution should go away. I just think that it would be nice for an all-in-one package to exist, for users just wanting to try out PostgreSQL on their desktop. Of course, if your server didn't have X11 compiled (I don't see why it would), then the graphical components would not (because they could not) be compiled :). Vertu sæll, -- Sigþór Björn Jarðarson (Casey Allen Shobe) http://rivyn.livejournal.com
Well, another approach is to provide a set of 'real-life' mini project examples to show the PG way of doing things, and link items in the code to pages in the documentation. An example mini project would be to show PHP users a way of updating multiple tables from a single function call (pl/pgsql) or how to return page 2 of a total of 8 pages the PG way (set returning functions), or how to show the number of contributions each author in a list has made (left outer joins...). Rory On 29/12/03, Ericson Smith (eric@did-it.com) wrote: > What's next? Do we keep arguing about how it meets our needs now, or > look at moving forward to meet the needs of the next crop of new users > who think MySQL sucks, but need better documentation? -- Rory Campbell-Lange <rory@campbell-lange.net> <www.campbell-lange.net>
Quoting Rory Campbell-Lange <rory@campbell-lange.net>: > Well, another approach is to provide a set of 'real-life' mini project > examples to show the PG way of doing things, and link items in the code > to pages in the documentation. I totally agree. I've mentioned that before as well- I call them tech notes. Either way, I personally think they should be on the tech docs site with the content merged into the search engines. Linking in the docs is bad idea. Things change over time and the docs should not need to be updated with information that is not the actually part of the documentation. > An example mini project would be to show PHP users a way of updating > multiple tables from a single function call (pl/pgsql) or how to return > page 2 of a total of 8 pages the PG way (set returning functions), or > how to show the number of contributions each author in a list has made > (left outer joins...). > > Rory > > On 29/12/03, Ericson Smith (eric@did-it.com) wrote: > > What's next? Do we keep arguing about how it meets our needs now, or > > look at moving forward to meet the needs of the next crop of new users > > who think MySQL sucks, but need better documentation? > > -- > Rory Campbell-Lange > <rory@campbell-lange.net> > <www.campbell-lange.net> > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Quoting Rory Campbell-Lange <rory@campbell-lange.net>: > Well, another approach is to provide a set of 'real-life' mini project > examples to show the PG way of doing things, and link items in the code > to pages in the documentation. I totally agree. I've mentioned that before as well- I call them tech notes. Either way, I personally think they should be on the tech docs site with the content merged into the search engines. Linking in the docs is bad idea. Things change over time and the docs should not need to be updated with information that is not the actually part of the documentation. > An example mini project would be to show PHP users a way of updating > multiple tables from a single function call (pl/pgsql) or how to return > page 2 of a total of 8 pages the PG way (set returning functions), or > how to show the number of contributions each author in a list has made > (left outer joins...). > > Rory > > On 29/12/03, Ericson Smith (eric@did-it.com) wrote: > > What's next? Do we keep arguing about how it meets our needs now, or > > look at moving forward to meet the needs of the next crop of new users > > who think MySQL sucks, but need better documentation? > > -- > Rory Campbell-Lange > <rory@campbell-lange.net> > <www.campbell-lange.net> > -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Actually, I've gotta admit I don't take my own advice. I deployed a PHP company directory for a small company (to small to make the MS Exchange mistake) and it was deployed on MySQL, then about 2 weeks after completion I moved it over to OpenLDAP :) C'est la Vie :) T. >Hehe, yea those infamous Access "Apps". > >Even though I use PG for everything, I know that MySQL is probably fine for most >web site servering up what I would call "lightweight dynamic content". My >experience has taught me that most organizations will grow fairly quickly to the >point of needing something on the level with PG. So, you can do it now >"properly" (with PG or something similar) or migrate it later (MySQL, Access, et >al). If someone really wanted MySQL for something "light", I'm pretty sure I >would not have a problem putting someone on that project. What I would not do >is commit a consultant to something that has all the markings of being a bear to >deploy and maintain. > > > > > >
"Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com> writes:
> I understand your point. I was just thinking that the other documents are
> aimed at experienced users, and that the Tutorial as of now, does not seem
> to fill the need for a beginner.
Then we should fix it ...
> I guess the current format is good-- 4 books more or less integrated into
> one. BTW, I took another look at the tutorial, and it is far better than
> it was in previous versions. I still think it needs some expansion
No objection to that from me.
regards, tom lane
xzilla@users.sourceforge.net says... > Do you have a link that verifies this? I hadn't heard this at all and > find it somewhat surprising given their disregard for the initial > complaints... OK, link per se I do not have, but if you look in some of the Firebird (the database) lists, you will find serious complaints - try news.atkin.com if you want to search. Take a look at www.mozilla.org to see how "committed" they are to removing the "Firebird" name from their offering. It should have gone ages ago, they could have even said something like "Mozilla Firebird", but no, it's all Firebird this and Firebird that... Paul... > Robert Treat -- plinehan y_a_h_o_o and d_o_t com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post. "XML avoids the fundamental question of what we should do, by focusing entirely on how we should do it." quote from http://www.metatorial.com
On Sunday 04 January 2004 16:46, Paul Ganainm wrote:
> xzilla@users.sourceforge.net says...
>
> > Do you have a link that verifies this? I hadn't heard this at all and
> > find it somewhat surprising given their disregard for the initial
> > complaints...
>
> OK, link per se I do not have, but if you look in some of the Firebird
> (the database) lists, you will find serious complaints - try
> news.atkin.com if you want to search.
>
> Take a look at www.mozilla.org to see how "committed" they are to
> removing the "Firebird" name from their offering. It should have gone
> ages ago, they could have even said something like "Mozilla Firebird",
> but no, it's all Firebird this and Firebird that...
>
err... i think you misunderstood... I'm was looking for a link to show the
mozilla folks saying they would stop using the firebird name. I've never
heard such a thing, while I have heard the opposite, and the info you site
above only seems to verify that mozilla plans to use firebird in the future.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Monday 05 January 2004 06:45, Robert Treat wrote: > err... i think you misunderstood... I'm was looking for a link to show the > mozilla folks saying they would stop using the firebird name. I've never > heard such a thing, while I have heard the opposite, and the info you site > above only seems to verify that mozilla plans to use firebird in the > future. There are a couple of mails along those lines here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Firebird-general/message/4756 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Firebird-general/message/4674 (Yahoo registration required...) Ian Barwick barwick@gmx.net
xzilla@users.sourceforge.net says... > err... i think you misunderstood... I'm was looking for a link to show the > mozilla folks saying they would stop using the firebird name. I've never > heard such a thing, while I have heard the opposite, and the info you site > above only seems to verify that mozilla plans to use firebird in the future. Well, I follow the Firebird lists (and am currently writing an app that uses the embedded dll - yummy - no horrible installation scripts! - any chance of putting that on the PostgreSQL todo list?) and on those lists there are senior Firebird people who have posted quotes from emails which they say (and I have no reason to disbelieve them) are from senior Mozilla people to the effect that they will stop using the Firebird moniker. There are also emails complaining about the sloth - not to say deliberate pussy-footing around - the the Mozilla crowd have been up to in not honouring their written committment to remove the Firebird part of the name for their browser. There are those in the Firebird (db) crowd who are on the verge of suing, so it could get nasty yet! Paul... > Robert Treat -- plinehan y_a_h_o_o and d_o_t com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04 W2K Pro Please do not top-post. "XML avoids the fundamental question of what we should do, by focusing entirely on how we should do it." quote from http://www.metatorial.com
unsubscribe
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, xzilla@users.sourceforge.net (Robert Treat) wrote: > On Sunday 04 January 2004 16:46, Paul Ganainm wrote: >> xzilla@users.sourceforge.net says... >> > Do you have a link that verifies this? I hadn't heard this at >> > all and find it somewhat surprising given their disregard for the >> > initial complaints... >> >> OK, link per se I do not have, but if you look in some of the >> Firebird (the database) lists, you will find serious complaints - >> try news.atkin.com if you want to search. >> >> Take a look at www.mozilla.org to see how "committed" they are to >> removing the "Firebird" name from their offering. It should have >> gone ages ago, they could have even said something like "Mozilla >> Firebird", but no, it's all Firebird this and Firebird that... > > err... i think you misunderstood... I'm was looking for a link to > show the mozilla folks saying they would stop using the firebird > name. I've never heard such a thing, while I have heard the > opposite, and the info you site above only seems to verify that > mozilla plans to use firebird in the future. Hmm. I saw a "Mozilla News" entry last week that suggested that once the software stabilizes, they would like to rename the packages from "Mozilla Firebird" to "Mozilla Browser" and from "Mozilla Thunderbird" to "Mozilla Mail," the 'new' names obviously being a tad more descriptive. The continued use of the name "Firebird" by the Mozilla Project represents a pretty dismaying level of disrespect for other 'open source' projects. Others have been more careful, historically. HylaFax, for instance, is named as it is because they discovered a previous user of their previous name, "FlexFax." Of course, the "previous user" was a commercial enterprise that might even have registered a trademark. It is probably a mistake that the founders of the Firebird project didn't register a trademark... -- "cbbrowne","@","cbbrowne.com" http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/sgml.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #62. "I will design fortress hallways with no alcoves or protruding structural supports which intruders could use for cover in a firefight." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Le Dimanche 28 Décembre 2003 06:45, D. Dante Lorenso a écrit : > As a plug, though ... I'm hooked on EMS PostgreSQL Manager 2.0. I'd have > to say that I'd not be as much of a PostgreSQL supporter if it weren't for > this client tool. I think EMS did the 'making it friendly to the > developer' that was sorely lacking in stock PostgreSQL client tools. > Kudos. You can also have a look at pgAdmin visiting http://www.pgadmin.org. Best regards, Jean-Michel
I recommend EMS PostgreSQL Manager as well. When I decided to migrate my databases away from MS SQL Server, I narrowed my alternatives to MySQL or PostgreSQL. I was leaning towards PostgreSQL because it was obviously more robust and feature-rich, however MySQL has far more third-party tool support (and a pretty slick marketing effort). It was the EMS products that decided for me. I used their PG DataPump to migrate the databases, which saved me countless days of work. And I use their PG Manager product for development. For the record, I also use pgAdmin III. Both tools have their strengths. I particularly like the visual database designer feature that EMS added to version 2. My 2 cents... :) At 02:33 PM 11/01/2004 +0100, Jean-Michel POURE wrote: >Le Dimanche 28 Décembre 2003 06:45, D. Dante Lorenso a écrit : > > As a plug, though ... I'm hooked on EMS PostgreSQL Manager 2.0. I'd have > > to say that I'd not be as much of a PostgreSQL supporter if it weren't for > > this client tool. I think EMS did the 'making it friendly to the > > developer' that was sorely lacking in stock PostgreSQL client tools. > > Kudos. > >You can also have a look at pgAdmin visiting http://www.pgadmin.org. >Best regards, Jean-Michel > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org _____________________________________ Rivendell Software - Dynamic Web Solutions http://www.rivendellsoftware.com Tel 902.461.1697 Fax 902.461.3765
Hi, I am getting the following error when running an update from a JAVA program using a Tomcat Connection Pool. SQLException: Error Relation 215106760 does not exist In the server log I see additional info Error occured while executing PL/pgSQL function funcName line 105 at select into variables I dont think that the Function has a problem as I am able to run it with the same parameters from within psql returning me a result. The strange thing is that it works for a couple of day. Once I restart tomcat the problem goes away... for a few days. Although I use many objects from the same Servlet, only this particular PL/pgSQL function has a problem. Question: 1. Is that problem known in PG7.3.4? 2. Could this be a problem with the connection pool of tomcat or the postgres JDBC driver ? 3. how do i find out the name of the actual object referred by 215106760 in the error message? Thanks for any help Alex
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Alex wrote: > Hi, > I am getting the following error when running an update from a JAVA > program using a Tomcat Connection Pool. > > SQLException: Error Relation 215106760 does not exist > > In the server log I see additional info Error occured while executing > PL/pgSQL function funcName > line 105 at select into variables This error is likely the result of using a temp table without EXECUTE or having one of your tables dropped (recreating it won't help). plpgsql caches query plans, but doesn't track the plans dependencies, so if any of the underlying objects change you can get this error. > 2. Could this be a problem with the connection pool of tomcat or the > postgres JDBC driver ? The plans are cached once per backend, the connection pool keeps that same backend open forever which means you can never safely change your schema without restarting the pool. > 3. how do i find out the name of the actual object referred by 215106760 > in the error message? > SELECT relname FROM pg_class WHERE oid = 215106760; Kris Jurka
Kris, thanks for the reply. I dont actually use temp tables in the function (not that I know of) but I did truncated and reloaded a few tables incl. recreating indices the previous day, however the line no. indicated in the serverlog does not point to these sql calls. I am now re-starting tomcat every night which is not a bad thing anyway but still am wondering what the real reason could be. Alex Kris Jurka wrote: >On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Alex wrote: > > > >>Hi, >>I am getting the following error when running an update from a JAVA >>program using a Tomcat Connection Pool. >> >>SQLException: Error Relation 215106760 does not exist >> >>In the server log I see additional info Error occured while executing >>PL/pgSQL function funcName >>line 105 at select into variables >> >> > >This error is likely the result of using a temp table without EXECUTE or >having one of your tables dropped (recreating it won't help). plpgsql >caches query plans, but doesn't track the plans dependencies, so if any of >the underlying objects change you can get this error. > > > >>2. Could this be a problem with the connection pool of tomcat or the >>postgres JDBC driver ? >> >> > >The plans are cached once per backend, the connection pool keeps that same >backend open forever which means you can never safely change your >schema without restarting the pool. > > > >>3. how do i find out the name of the actual object referred by 215106760 >>in the error message? >> >> >> > >SELECT relname FROM pg_class WHERE oid = 215106760; > >Kris Jurka > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > > > >
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Alex wrote: > Kris, > thanks for the reply. I dont actually use temp tables in the function > (not that I know of) but I did truncated and reloaded a few tables incl. > recreating indices the previous day, however the line no. indicated in > the serverlog does not point to these sql calls. > > I am now re-starting tomcat every night which is not a bad thing anyway > but still am wondering what the real reason could be. > The reason is probably the recreation of the indexes. When a plpgsql procedure is first executed it takes the queries in it, plans them, and saves that query plan so that every time afterward the procedure just uses the stored plan. The problem is that one of the plans depended on one of the indexes. When the index was dropped the procedure tried to run a plan that was no longer valid, generating the error you saw. Restarting tomcat closes and reopens the connection to the database, so the query in the procedure gets replanned to use the new index and things run smoothly. Kris Jurka