Thread: Postgress and MYSQL
To whom it may concern: I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. I continue to see articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for development an open_source web database. Why isn't PostgreSQL being considered or talked about by major industry giants? As a DBA I know that Postgres is far superior to MYSQL but if the industry directs it's energies towards open-source database this coming year I think somehow PostgreSQL needs to be represented better. Bob Powell
Bob Powell said: > I continue to see articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for > development an open_source web database. Why would IBM use and promote postgres when it is much closer an offering to DB2 than MySQL, and a much bigger commercial threat? I'll bet that IBM will be planning on a nice migration path from the open-source-web-db to DB2... John Sidney-Woollett
"Bob Powell" <Bob@hotchkiss.org> writes:
> I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
> disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention.
You are seeing the effects of MySQL AB's large marketing budget;
they have the time and money to cause such articles to appear.
I'm not sure there is much we can do to counter this in the short run.
(I do wonder how quickly they are running through that $19 mil
investment though ...)
regards, tom lane
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: Tom> "Bob Powell" <Bob@hotchkiss.org> writes: >> I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little >> disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. Tom> You are seeing the effects of MySQL AB's large marketing budget; Tom> they have the time and money to cause such articles to appear. Tom> I'm not sure there is much we can do to counter this in the short run. Tom> (I do wonder how quickly they are running through that $19 mil Tom> investment though ...) My new buzz-meme (pass it along)... "You're still using MySQL... that's sooooo 90's!" :-) Seriously, the space occupied by MySQL has been encroached by SQLite from the low end (if you just want SQL access to a data file, including transactions) and PostgreSQL from the high end (when you want a full-featured database). I think they've completely overlapped at this point (especially when I just discovered yesterday that you can register Perl callbacks for user-defined functions and aggregates in DBD::SQLite!), so MySQL really doesn't have much of a win at either end. -- 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!
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > "Bob Powell" <Bob@hotchkiss.org> writes: > > I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little > > disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. > > You are seeing the effects of MySQL AB's large marketing budget; > they have the time and money to cause such articles to appear. > I'm not sure there is much we can do to counter this in the short run. > (I do wonder how quickly they are running through that $19 mil > investment though ...) Let's see if they can beat GB? *evil grin* ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
>>(I do wonder how quickly they are running through that $19 mil >>investment though ...) >> >> > >Let's see if they can beat GB? *evil grin* > > > I seriously doubt they will be a GB... MySQL is at least making money (probably not profit though). They have a huge, loyal following and presumably a decent size customer base. GB had none of this. MySQL will probably be around a long, long time. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >---- >Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) >Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > > -- 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
I cannot answer your question directly, but I did come across this mysql/postgresql article this morning... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1817&e=10&u=/zd/2004011 1/tc_zd/116115&sid=96120751 I'm sure it's already been posted to the list. -jim -----Original Message----- From: Bob Powell [mailto:Bob@hotchkiss.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:32 AM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: [GENERAL] Postgress and MYSQL To whom it may concern: I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. I continue to see articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for development an open_source web database. Why isn't PostgreSQL being considered or talked about by major industry giants? As a DBA I know that Postgres is far superior to MYSQL but if the industry directs it's energies towards open-source database this coming year I think somehow PostgreSQL needs to be represented better. Bob Powell ---------------------------(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
Hello Bob! Everybody knows that PostgreSQL is better than MySQL and supports more features etc. But remember - the main issue of database systems now is web that is being build mainly by students that do not even know what database engines are made for. At least here (My second job is Instructor in Unix/Linux/etc.) and i know that the main thing that is required by students is Linux with apache and MySQL. And the strange thing - students are always starting learning from Network Administration or Linux in Enterprise course, but real administrators who is working with systems for 10-15 years are starting from Introduction into unix systems. Here in Russia almost all web design companies using MySQL, on all hosting systems owners asking to install MySQL for their users etc. MySQL is everywhere. So, who will work with PG? Only people registered here :)) Maybe a few more. So it is normal that MySQL beats PG on the market. I have Oracle, PostgreSQL servers, used to work with DB2 on AS/400 and personaly i know that PG is better than MySQL. But who will tell it to students who saw a computer twice and already think that they are administrators? :)))) Please do not kill me for this post - i like PG and working with PG and developing for PG, i was talking just about what happening around. To make PG known there should be more and more products that relay on PG. And this should be not Banking or other mission critical projects. It should be a simple forums, picture bases i do not know what but the things that should be installable for 3 minutes and working for years. Otherwise if PG is positioning itself as a DB system for huge and mission critical tasks - nobody here should think about MySQL that was simple and will be simple when PG is being installed for tasks where MySQL will never work and nobody will ever think it will. Regards, Anton BP> To whom it may concern: BP> I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little BP> disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. I continue to see BP> articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for development an BP> open_source web database. BP> Why isn't PostgreSQL being considered or talked about by major industry BP> giants? As a DBA I know that Postgres is far superior to MYSQL but if BP> the industry directs it's energies towards open-source database this BP> coming year I think somehow PostgreSQL needs to be represented better. BP> Bob Powell BP> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- BP> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate BP> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your BP> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
On Jan 14, 2004, at 0:08, Anton.Nikiforov@loteco.ru wrote:
> around. To make PG known there should be more and more products that
> relay on PG. And this should be not Banking or other mission critical
> projects. It should be a simple forums, picture bases i do not know
This is very insightful. mySQL is not popular in the enterprise
because it's known to solve big problems, but because it's known to
solve little ones. It seems so wrong, but makes so much sense.
--
Dustin Sallings
I have to agree. In my experience the average database user out there does not need the entire functionality of something like Oracle. It is because of this that I have used MySQL for many years now. In this light (please accept my confession as to being a more prolific MySQL user), I am becoming more converted to Postgress. I am very impressed with the full features of PG, but I have noticed some things that will make PG more useful out of the box. 1. Replication: Like it or not most people regard their data and access to their data as 'invaluable'. If not, why are they storing it. Having a secondary server (read slaves) on which you can perform backups, load balance RO traffic, and eventually use as a failover has been one of the great selling points of MySQL for my specific applications. I wish there were a Master-Master replication scheme out there, but that is not the case. 2. Documentation: In delving deeper into the Postgress database I have tried to find whatever I can to learn more. I have found an Oreilly book out there, but the TOC reads almost the exact same as the online documentation. I ask myself - have they lifted the documentation and are now trying to sell me it bound in book form? MySQL did the same for a while, but it was the other books- problem solving, examples, programming, etc.. that really helped MySQL adoption IMO. MySQL marketing has done much to help the average database user out there feel like they are getting a powerful and feature-rich database. The average user out there is doing nothing more than address books and recipe books. They, however, __THINK__ they are real DBA's because MySQL is happy to lead them to believe that. Having them evangelize the database is like gold. There is no barrier-to-entry (read cash!!!) to MySQL (or Postgress for that matter) that requires business case analysis and hiring of trained professionals to run the database. I see a trend of "DBA's", "Network Admin's", "** Admins'"(fill in blank) out there that lack a fundamental understanding of how a computer works and how you make it work for you, not the other way around. I scoff at most training centers that sit you in front of a terminal (maintained by them) and teach you everything you need to know in 20 days for $1200. They lack the understanding of how I/O works, CPU & caching, ... They know one thing, but they __THINK__ they are the master. I have ranted about this for a point. It is not what the seasoned 20 year UNIX veteran knows about a database/OS that really matters in terms of adoption - it is what the general mass of people __THINKS__ matters. They are becoming ever present in high levels of decision making functions. Perception is the key. My $0.02. Quoting Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>: > > On Jan 14, 2004, at 0:08, Anton.Nikiforov@loteco.ru wrote: > > > around. To make PG known there should be more and more products that > > relay on PG. And this should be not Banking or other mission critical > > projects. It should be a simple forums, picture bases i do not know > > This is very insightful. mySQL is not popular in the enterprise > because it's known to solve big problems, but because it's known to > solve little ones. It seems so wrong, but makes so much sense. > > -- > Dustin Sallings > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster >
Matt Davies wrote: > 2. Documentation: In delving deeper into the Postgress database I > have tried to find whatever I can to learn more. I have found an > Oreilly book out there, but the TOC reads almost the exact same as > the online documentation. I ask myself - have they lifted the > documentation and are now trying to sell me it bound in book form? > MySQL did the same for a while, but it was the other books- problem > solving, examples, programming, etc.. that really helped MySQL > adoption IMO. http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/books.html
>1. Replication: Like it or not most people regard their data and access to their >data as 'invaluable'. If not, why are they storing it. Having a secondary >server (read slaves) on which you can perform backups, load balance RO traffic, >and eventually use as a failover has been one of the great selling points of >MySQL for my specific applications. I wish there were a Master-Master >replication scheme out there, but that is not the case. > > > Replication exists in multiple manners for PostgreSQL. There is Mammoth replicator (our product), ErServer (pgsql.com's product), dbmirror, Rserv, and pgCluster. >2. Documentation: In delving deeper into the Postgress database I have tried to >find whatever I can to learn more. I have found an Oreilly book out there, but >the TOC reads almost the exact same as the online documentation. I ask myself - >have they lifted the documentation and are now trying to sell me it bound in >book form? > I am sorry but I am the co-author of that book and I can tell you the only thing in that book that reads like the documentation is the reference chapter and the appendixes. Not to mention that PostgreSQL.Org has some of the most complete documentation of any software out there. There are also several books on PostgreSQL including the O'Reilly one, the Addison Wesley one, the Sams one... and I think even a PTR one. >MySQL marketing has done much to help the average database user out there feel >like they are getting a powerful and feature-rich database. The average user >out there is doing nothing more than address books and recipe books. They, > > MySQL has what 19 million in the bank? >I have ranted about this for a point. It is not what the seasoned 20 year UNIX >veteran knows about a database/OS that really matters in terms of adoption - it >is what the general mass of people __THINKS__ matters. They are becoming ever >present in high levels of decision making functions. Perception is the key. > > > This is very true. Perception is the key. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >My $0.02. > > > > > > >Quoting Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>: > > > >>On Jan 14, 2004, at 0:08, Anton.Nikiforov@loteco.ru wrote: >> >> >> >>>around. To make PG known there should be more and more products that >>>relay on PG. And this should be not Banking or other mission critical >>>projects. It should be a simple forums, picture bases i do not know >>> >>> >> This is very insightful. mySQL is not popular in the enterprise >>because it's known to solve big problems, but because it's known to >>solve little ones. It seems so wrong, but makes so much sense. >> >>-- >>Dustin Sallings >> >> >>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster >> >> >> > > > > >---------------------------(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 > > -- 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 Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Not to mention that PostgreSQL.Org has some of the most complete > documentation > of any software out there. Yes, I don't understand why people seem to keep complaining about Postgres' documentation - it is by far the best reference documentation I've ever come across. Maybe it's that there isn't much tutorial content in the documentation - for somebody trying to learn how to do SQL in the first place, it's not going to hold your hand and I could see how that will turn off newbies.
On Jan 14, 2004, at 10:18, Matt Davies wrote:
> 1. Replication: Like it or not most people regard their data and
> access to their
> data as 'invaluable'. If not, why are they storing it. Having a
> secondary
I'm not the only person who has used this same argument against mySQL
installs. There is a huge understanding problem here. Sure, so you're
replicating your data...that doesn't mean you're storing what you think
you're storing, or transactionally safe, or consistent, etc...
> server (read slaves) on which you can perform backups, load balance RO
> traffic,
> and eventually use as a failover has been one of the great selling
> points of
> MySQL for my specific applications. I wish there were a Master-Master
> replication scheme out there, but that is not the case.
You don't need a replicate to perform a backup in general. mySQL
imposed this requirement, but a replicate shouldn't be used that way.
Load balancing, perhaps...failover, maybe.
In my experience with really good replication systems (sybase's rep
server), we didn't really use replication this way. We had a replicate
going to a DSS system which was indexed and used differently, and we
had a replicate going to a ``warm'' standby which we would use for some
read-only queries. Its original purpose was to use as a failover
system, but it was rarely used this way, even when there were
catastrophic database problems. The reason is simple. If something
broke the DB, it would be plain irresponsible to swap out the DB server
for another one that is (as far as we know) just as likely to break for
the same reason leaving us stranded. Breaking replication required
rematerialization of the master after brining it back online, which was
an expensive process that left us without a spare for several hours.
So it was the DBAs' job to spend some time during any database failure
to determine the cause and solution. Occasionally that meant swapping
to the other DB, but that process was never automated (well, no more
than being a script a DBA would run whenever he determined it
necessary).
--
Dustin Sallings
Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>: > > > Replication exists in multiple manners for PostgreSQL. There is Mammoth > replicator (our product), > ErServer (pgsql.com's product), dbmirror, Rserv, and pgCluster. What I meant was integrated replication. When adding more layers to the database there is yet one more possible mechanism for failure at some point. I don't know about you, but Murphy always bites me in the butt. In addition, I found your product VERY interesting, but it kinda puts me off that it is starting at $1000. PG is free, MySQL is not (for my purposes) and costs ~$500 with everything in one tried and true package. > > > MySQL has what 19 million in the bank? I only point out what the userbase is feeling. I have never been attacked as an idiot when using MySQL - I have always had helpful responses instead of "RTFM" as I have seen and experienced here (and with qmail). To many people starting the decision making process one looks at the type of support and how the group makes you feel. You don't risk the company or project on potential hostility. > > > > > This is very true. Perception is the key. > Again, I point out, PERCEPTION is the key. This can be done regardless of the cash stash in the bank. > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake >
Quoting Ben <bench@silentmedia.com>: > Yes, I don't understand why people seem to keep complaining about > Postgres' documentation - it is by far the best reference documentation > I've ever come across. > > Maybe it's that there isn't much tutorial content in the documentation - > for somebody trying to learn how to do SQL in the first place, it's not > going to hold your hand and I could see how that will turn off newbies. > I agree - it is very clear and complete. I do think that tutorials will help. Tutorials being - 1. Basic SQL (one must understand that if you want your product to go forward you have to teach some basic fundamentals - again no barrier to entry = (usually) no formal training) 2. General Tutorials (see above) 3. Advanced Usage Tutorials (see above, again) Acceptance of PG could be greatly accelerated by more: 1. small projects using PG as a backend (as stated in previous thread post) 2. documenation coming from multiple sources. Don't ask me to explain why, but one seems to equate robustness, usability, etc... with the more titles one sees. If you go to Barnes and Noble's and look there for DB books you see the wall of red (Oracle books), black (M$oft), blue (MySQL). I simply point out that perception being as it is - PG is not there. I am trying to learn more and more about it to remedy my newcomer understanding of PG. Do not read this as if I am a newbie to DB's; I am not ignorant. I talk of perception - if you get PG into the hands of more newbies and make them feel good you have a viral marketing strategy that costs you no $. I fell for it years ago with MySQL, but I have since learned. Now that I have Oracle experience as a reference I see MySQL as lacking and trying to hoodwink me. Most never make it out of the cloud.
A good clean replication system is not available for bsd platforms as far as I can tell, which is the preferred OS of choice for many PG installations. I am playing around with Erserver, but the download has to be updated from cvs or it won't even compile (corrupted file in the distribution). It appears to me at first glance that it is not actively being worked on, although it may indeed work (I haven't had a chance to fully configure/test it yet on freebsd 5). The Erserver I downloaded is free, although I was confused also because I found that same page that said it was $1000. I'm still not sure if the erserver I downloaded is the only version, or if there is a commercial version? Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Davies" <matt@mattdavies.net> To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postgress and MYSQL > Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>: > > > > > > Replication exists in multiple manners for PostgreSQL. There is Mammoth > > replicator (our product), > > ErServer (pgsql.com's product), dbmirror, Rserv, and pgCluster. > > What I meant was integrated replication. When adding more layers to the database > there is yet one more possible mechanism for failure at some point. I don't > know about you, but Murphy always bites me in the butt. In addition, I found > your product VERY interesting, but it kinda puts me off that it is starting at > $1000. PG is free, MySQL is not (for my purposes) and costs ~$500 with > everything in one tried and true package. > > > > > > > > MySQL has what 19 million in the bank? > > I only point out what the userbase is feeling. I have never been attacked as an > idiot when using MySQL - I have always had helpful responses instead of "RTFM" > as I have seen and experienced here (and with qmail). To many people starting > the decision making process one looks at the type of support and how the group > makes you feel. You don't risk the company or project on potential hostility. > > > > > > > > > This is very true. Perception is the key. > > > > Again, I point out, PERCEPTION is the key. This can be done regardless of the > cash stash in the bank. > > > Sincerely, > > > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >
Mensaje citado por Ben <bench@silentmedia.com>:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > Not to mention that PostgreSQL.Org has some of the most complete
> > documentation
> > of any software out there.
>
> Yes, I don't understand why people seem to keep complaining about
> Postgres' documentation - it is by far the best reference documentation
> I've ever come across.
Not really. I just tried to look in the docs for the explicit for of a CAST
(really trying to find the link to send someone), and I just couldn't find it.
I know it's somewhere there, as I have read it before, but not even the search
engine installed in the interactive docs seem to find that doc.
Personally I think the docs are great (I learned a lot from them), but some
things are not that easy to find, even with a search engine. Compared to MySQL
online docs, PG's docs are heaven!!! :-)
--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
---------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | Programador, DBA
Centro de Telemática | Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
---------------------------------------------------------
>What I meant was integrated replication. When adding more layers to the database >there is yet one more possible mechanism for failure at some point. I don't >know about you, but Murphy always bites me in the butt. In addition, I found >your product VERY interesting, but it kinda puts me off that it is starting at >$1000. PG is free, MySQL is not (for my purposes) and costs ~$500 with >everything in one tried and true package. > > > I am sorry but MySQL is anything but a tried a true package for any serious database stuff. Yes it is simple, but I don't consider any database that will allow you to: divide by zero truncate data ignore data type constraints worth even 500.00. > only point out what the userbase is feeling. I have never been attacked as an >idiot when using MySQL - I have always had helpful responses instead of "RTFM" > > Well first, you should always RTFM but I have never seen anyone being treated like an idiot on these lists and we have some pretty dumb monkeys ask questions some times. 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
We are in the process of porting a logistics application to Postgres from a Progress Software database. We have about 75 employees and will be putting Postgres to work in a real time business situation where there are lots of transactions. Once we are successful in this endeavor, how can we get stories like that out to people who would care to know? I know this is a small business project, but will it help to advertise that the "little" guys are in the trenches doing this kind of thing? On Tuesday 13 January 2004 11:32 am, Bob Powell wrote: > To whom it may concern: > > I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little > disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. I continue to see > articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for development an > open_source web database. > > Why isn't PostgreSQL being considered or talked about by major industry > giants? As a DBA I know that Postgres is far superior to MYSQL but if > the industry directs it's energies towards open-source database this > coming year I think somehow PostgreSQL needs to be represented better. > > > Bob Powell > > > ---------------------------(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 -- "Posterity -- you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it." --John Quincy Adams Work: 1-336-372-6812 Cell: 1-336-363-4719 email: terry@esc1.com
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Not to mention that PostgreSQL.Org has some of the most complete > > documentation > > of any software out there. > > Yes, I don't understand why people seem to keep complaining about > Postgres' documentation - it is by far the best reference documentation > I've ever come across. > > Maybe it's that there isn't much tutorial content in the documentation - > for somebody trying to learn how to do SQL in the first place, it's not > going to hold your hand and I could see how that will turn off newbies. I used to have that complaint until I got more aquainted with the docs. When I used to use mysql I found that if I used search feature on their docs I could find exactly what I was looking for almost immediately. When I use the postgres doc search feature I don't get the same experience. It is slow, sometimes doesn't work and rarely gives me what I am looking for. Then I just started using google to search the docs and realized that just looking at the TOC is usually good enough and that the postgres docs are actually excellent. My bad experience with search, as well as the good experience with mysql search (do other people feel this way) however led me initially to conclude that the postgres docs were not as good.
Terry Lee Tucker wrote: >We are in the process of porting a logistics application to Postgres from a >Progress Software database. We have about 75 employees and will be putting >Postgres to work in a real time business situation where there are lots of >transactions. Once we are successful in this endeavor, how can we get stories >like that out to people who would care to know? I know this is a small >business project, but will it help to advertise that the "little" guys are in >the trenches doing this kind of thing? > > > Absolutely. If you have a case study you can point over to pgsql-advocacy. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >On Tuesday 13 January 2004 11:32 am, Bob Powell wrote: > > >>To whom it may concern: >> >>I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little >>disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. I continue to see >>articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for development an >>open_source web database. >> >>Why isn't PostgreSQL being considered or talked about by major industry >>giants? As a DBA I know that Postgres is far superior to MYSQL but if >>the industry directs it's energies towards open-source database this >>coming year I think somehow PostgreSQL needs to be represented better. >> >> >>Bob Powell >> >> >>---------------------------(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 >> >> > > > -- 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
>I used to have that complaint until I got more aquainted with the docs. >When I used to use mysql I found that if I used search feature on their docs >I could find exactly what I was looking for almost immediately. When I use >the postgres doc search feature I don't get the same experience. It is > > Our doc search sucks. No question... there has been some work recently on it but it doesn't seem to be that reliable. So you have us on that one. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >slow, sometimes doesn't work and rarely gives me what I am looking for. >Then I just started using google to search the docs and realized that just >looking at the TOC is usually good enough and that the postgres docs are >actually excellent. My bad experience with search, as well as the good >experience with mysql search (do other people feel this way) however led me >initially to conclude that the postgres docs were not as good. > > >---------------------------(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 > > -- 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
Mensaje citado por Matt Davies <matt@mattdavies.net>:
> Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>:
>
> > >
> > MySQL has what 19 million in the bank?
>
> I only point out what the userbase is feeling. I have never been attacked as
> an
> idiot when using MySQL - I have always had helpful responses instead of
> "RTFM"
> as I have seen and experienced here (and with qmail). To many people
> starting
> the decision making process one looks at the type of support and how the
> group
> makes you feel. You don't risk the company or project on potential
> hostility.
Oh, please! I have never seen such a better community then this one (well, some
exceptions come to mind right now, but it's still within the best).
I have personally found GREAT replys from the developers (Tom Lane comes to
mind, saving me lots of time in some ocations), and users of this list.
Don't missunderstand me. Everyone (including me) some times makes responces in a
bit of a hard manner, but I think you have to see the whole picture, and not a
par of snapshots.
P.D.: BTW, RTFM is very good. You can learn alot from them. ;-)
--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
---------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | Programador, DBA
Centro de Telemática | Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
---------------------------------------------------------
> >I used to have that complaint until I got more aquainted with the docs. > >When I used to use mysql I found that if I used search feature on their docs > >I could find exactly what I was looking for almost immediately. When I use > >the postgres doc search feature I don't get the same experience. It is > > > > > Our doc search sucks. No question... there has been some work recently on it > but it doesn't seem to be that reliable. So you have us on that one. Uh, I don't have one on you the mysql team does. I haven't used mysql in over a year and don't intend to again (at least not for any app I write myself at leaset). I assume that the mysql website is just using the mysql full text search. Having used the mysql full text search it does not surprise me that the search on their website search is so good. I always asummed (read hoped) that the postgres full text search was just as good. I hope the bad website search is not a reflection of the quality of the full text search in postgres. Does anyone have any experience with postgers full text search? Perhaps someone could get two birds with one stone and make a good full text search engine for postgres (how hard could it be if mysql has such a good one :-) ) and use it to index the postgres docs. Of course maybe mysql.com uses some other proprietery seach.
Mensaje citado por "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>:
>
> >I used to have that complaint until I got more aquainted with the docs.
> >When I used to use mysql I found that if I used search feature on their
> docs
> >I could find exactly what I was looking for almost immediately. When I use
> >the postgres doc search feature I don't get the same experience. It is
> >
> >
> Our doc search sucks. No question... there has been some work recently on it
> but it doesn't seem to be that reliable. So you have us on that one.
I personally think that the search criterion is what's wrong here. The speed can
be fixed with optimization in the server.
--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
---------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | Programador, DBA
Centro de Telemática | Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
---------------------------------------------------------
> >Does anyone have any experience with postgers full text search? > > > It works well but it is my understanding that our docs search doesn't use PostgreSQL and TSearch. It uses PostgreSQL monogo search or something like that. J >Perhaps someone could get two birds with one stone and make a good full text >search engine for postgres (how hard could it be if mysql has such a good >one :-) ) and use it to index the postgres docs. > >Of course maybe mysql.com uses some other proprietery seach. > > >---------------------------(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 > > -- 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
Quoting Martin Marques <martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar>: > Oh, please! I have never seen such a better community then this one (well, > some > exceptions come to mind right now, but it's still within the best). > > I have personally found GREAT replys from the developers (Tom Lane comes to > mind, saving me lots of time in some ocations), and users of this list. > > Don't missunderstand me. Everyone (including me) some times makes responces > in a > bit of a hard manner, but I think you have to see the whole picture, and not > a > par of snapshots. > > P.D.: BTW, RTFM is very good. You can learn alot from them. ;-) This thread is getting long and out in never-never land. I have RTFM. In fact, many times. As a matter of practice I subscribe long before I post. I RTFM, I google, attempted to search the docs and lists, ... My comments come from my experiences and others. Yes, Tom Lane has wonderful advice and help. I do not mean to call the PG baby ugly (as I fear some people have taken it), I only mean to point out some areas (as others have in this thread) that could be improved upon that would greatly enhance PG. Imagine this: more users, more installations, more (selective) development fingers. Not all users are rocket scientists, but the video game rule applies to many: if I can't get it going in X (user preference) minutes then it isn't worth the trouble. Should PG be limited to only those who are hard core DB users? If so, I don't think PG will take off as fast. OK, I am done.
> >Does anyone have any experience with postgers full text search? > > > It works well but it is my understanding that our docs search doesn't > use PostgreSQL > and TSearch. It uses PostgreSQL monogo search or something like that. That's good to hear. What is monogo and is it the problem here? Why don't it use TSearch if it is better? Is it just a matter of someone taking the time to set it up?
>That's good to hear. What is monogo and is it the problem here? Why don't >it use TSearch if it is better? Is it just a matter of someone taking the >time to set it up? > > It is a little more complicated than that. Monogo or whatever it is called is more like a web spider that uses postgresql. Thus we can search the entire postgresql website. Tsearch is more about text search within PostgreSQL so we would have to load the books etc... into the database. That is not as easy as it sounds. Also if you are looking for something very cool... check out www.pgsql.ru 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
> Imagine this: more users, more installations, more (selective) development > fingers. Not all users are rocket scientists, but the video game rule applies > to many: if I can't get it going in X (user preference) minutes then it isn't > worth the trouble. Should PG be limited to only those who are hard core DB > users? If so, I don't think PG will take off as fast. We need a Postgres vs MySQL Mailing list :) Honestly PG is easy to get up and running on several distributions. On RH, service postgres start willgive you a running Postgres (it will do an initdb if needed). Now just create a user and get going. PG is only hard because people _think_ it's going to be hard. Or because it used to be hard. However, it hasn't been hard for a long time. I also don't think "how fast will this take off" is necesarily a good design requirement. Jon
Mensaje citado por Rick Gigger <rick@alpinenetworking.com>: > > >Does anyone have any experience with postgers full text search? > > > > > It works well but it is my understanding that our docs search doesn't > > use PostgreSQL > > and TSearch. It uses PostgreSQL monogo search or something like that. > > That's good to hear. What is monogo and is it the problem here? Why don't > it use TSearch if it is better? Is it just a matter of someone taking the > time to set it up? http://www.mnogosearch.com/ Aparently the problem is that this application is already written (I'm talking about the presentation and buisness layers). -- select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email; --------------------------------------------------------- Martín Marqués | Programador, DBA Centro de Telemática | Administrador Universidad Nacional del Litoral ---------------------------------------------------------
Personally I don't think it's installing/running the database server that people have problems with. I used postgresql about 5 years ago and am now switching back to it from sapdb. I have also used mysql and oracle. The problems I have had with postgresql is the websites. The website does very little to make an impression on new users, or to showcase the features that are available to someone that doesn't know anything about postgresql. It's difficult to find information, and too much information is outdated which makes you question everything else. I still am not sure what replication options are available because of all the conflicting information that is posted on the various websites (gborg, pgsql.com, postgresql.org, etc..). Look I love postgresql, but reality is reality. The database itself is great, the documentation is pretty good, but a lot of the other things about postgresql (like the website) need a lot of work. Postgresql gives the impression of being a second rate disorganized product if you were to just go by the website alone. Now of course that is not true, but perception governs people's actions and behavior. If people think postgresql is difficult, guess what, for all intents and purposes it is. If that perception leads them to use mysql instead of postgresql, then at some point you have to face the fact that it's the perceptions that are really important, regardless of the facts. Chris > > Honestly PG is easy to get up and running on several distributions. On > RH, service postgres start willgive you a running Postgres (it will do an > initdb if needed). Now just create a user and get going. > > PG is only hard because people _think_ it's going to be hard. Or because > it used to be hard. However, it hasn't been hard for a long time. > >
Quoting Rick Gigger <rick@alpinenetworking.com>: > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > > Not to mention that PostgreSQL.Org has some of the most complete > > > documentation > > > of any software out there. > > > > Yes, I don't understand why people seem to keep complaining about > > Postgres' documentation - it is by far the best reference documentation > > I've ever come across. > > > > Maybe it's that there isn't much tutorial content in the documentation - > > for somebody trying to learn how to do SQL in the first place, it's not > > going to hold your hand and I could see how that will turn off newbies. > > I used to have that complaint until I got more aquainted with the docs. > When I used to use mysql I found that if I used search feature on their docs > I could find exactly what I was looking for almost immediately. When I use > the postgres doc search feature I don't get the same experience. It is > slow, sometimes doesn't work and rarely gives me what I am looking for. > Then I just started using google to search the docs and realized that just > looking at the TOC is usually good enough and that the postgres docs are > actually excellent. My bad experience with search, as well as the good > experience with mysql search (do other people feel this way) however led me > initially to conclude that the postgres docs were not as good. > > > ---------------------------(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 > That is something we can't seem to get across the new folks who think that they can come from MySQL and move to PostgreSQL. I don't know why- I've heard people say it because they are both open source, I heard (new) people say that they should have to read the docs first, the reasons go on and on. What I do know is: 1) Comparing MySQL to PostgreSQL is not a valid technical discussion They're different products. 2) Assuming the way MySQL does is correct is also invalid. What MySQL does for MySQL works for them. Over time and with and open mind, I saw that even back in the 6.x days that PostgreSQL was going to be a more robust product and as such I had to not only learn PG but I also had to learn more about relational theory and SQL. I was initially put off too (I remember all my engineering buddies and I cracking jokes about those "database people") but at the time, my DB experience was Dbase, Filemaker Pro and Foxpro. I mean really... *laff* 3) Not being able to "find" something in via search BEFORE even reading the documentation is somewhat backwards. You have to at least get a feel for the docs before even know what to look for. That is not to say that the search engine is not problematic but it is to say that I'm am more and more convinced that knowing how to search more important than what is being searched for. 4) As many people pointed out before, a product should not be technical education it should product education. Some people take it as being rude we some on-list says use google or check <some other site>. Granted being told "this is not hand holding" is definitely a slap in the face its been done to me and I'm sure there is a better way to put it but the reality is that PG docs are very good. Get some paper and print they out double-sided- they're an excellent reference. However, you have to understand the basics first and that simply does not belong on the PG site (save a link to some community recommendations). BTW, I've asked this before but where are the 7.4 docs in PS or PDF format? If any one needs or wants them, I do have the 7.3.2-US books (admin, user, programmer & reference) in PS with the duplexing code. They all fit nicely in a 3" ring binder and will compliment any bookshelf :) -- 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 Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Rick Gigger wrote: > Does anyone have any experience with postgers full text search? I just put the docs on my apache server and hit them with htdig or mnogosearch.
Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>: > > >That's good to hear. What is monogo and is it the problem here? Why don't > >it use TSearch if it is better? Is it just a matter of someone taking the > >time to set it up? > > > > > It is a little more complicated than that. Monogo or whatever it is > called is more > like a web spider that uses postgresql. Thus we can search the entire > postgresql > website. Tsearch is more about text search within PostgreSQL so we would > have > to load the books etc... into the database. That is not as easy as it > sounds. > > Also if you are looking for something very cool... check out www.pgsql.ru > > 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 > > > ---------------------------(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 > I thought Marc optimized the search last week when this same thread was being discussed? Marc? -- 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
> >BTW, I've asked this before but where are the 7.4 docs in PS or PDF format? If > > They are being worked on ;) >any one needs or wants them, I do have the 7.3.2-US books (admin, user, >programmer & reference) in PS with the duplexing code. They all fit nicely in a >3" ring binder and will compliment any bookshelf :) > > > -- 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
>Look I love postgresql, but reality is reality. The database itself is >great, the documentation is pretty good, but a lot of the other things about >postgresql (like the website) need a lot of work. Postgresql gives the >impression of being a second rate disorganized product if you were to just >go by the website alone. > Isn't that true of just about any OSS project? Heck, Linux doesn't even have a website ;). MySQL is not an OSS project, it is an OSS product with a commercial company backing it. There is a big difference. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > Now of course that is not true, but perception >governs people's actions and behavior. If people think postgresql is >difficult, guess what, for all intents and purposes it is. If that >perception leads them to use mysql instead of postgresql, then at some point >you have to face the fact that it's the perceptions that are really >important, regardless of the facts. > >Chris > > > > > >>Honestly PG is easy to get up and running on several distributions. On >>RH, service postgres start willgive you a running Postgres (it will do an >>initdb if needed). Now just create a user and get going. >> >>PG is only hard because people _think_ it's going to be hard. Or because >>it used to be hard. However, it hasn't been hard for a long time. >> >> >> >> > > >---------------------------(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 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
Martin Marques wrote: > Not really. I just tried to look in the docs for the explicit for of > a CAST (really trying to find the link to send someone), and I just > couldn't find it. I know it's somewhere there, as I have read it > before, but not even the search engine installed in the interactive > docs seem to find that doc. If you want to find something in the documentation, there's an index at the end of it. I realize now that there's no entry for CAST, which I will fix. But if you find more terms that you would like to see in the index, write to pgsql-docs.
Yes I didn't really want to get into that at the moment, but that is THE main difference.... That said, there are number of OSS projects that have very nice websites, and it wouldn't be that much work to clean up the postgresql site a bit. I'm not talking about a ton of new content, just a simple, clean layout for the front page that's easier to use. I might even do a template myself and send it to the list if I can get the time. Chris > > > Isn't that true of just about any OSS project? Heck, Linux doesn't even > have a website ;). > MySQL is not an OSS project, it is an OSS product with a commercial > company backing > it. There is a big difference. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > > > Now of course that is not true, but perception > >governs people's actions and behavior. If people think postgresql is > >difficult, guess what, for all intents and purposes it is. If that > >perception leads them to use mysql instead of postgresql, then at some point > >you have to face the fact that it's the perceptions that are really > >important, regardless of the facts. > > > >Chris > > > > > > > > > > > >>Honestly PG is easy to get up and running on several distributions. On > >>RH, service postgres start willgive you a running Postgres (it will do an > >>initdb if needed). Now just create a user and get going. > >> > >>PG is only hard because people _think_ it's going to be hard. Or because > >>it used to be hard. However, it hasn't been hard for a long time. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >---------------------------(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 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 > >
>I'm not talking about a ton of new content, just a simple, clean layout for >the front page that's easier to use. I might even do a template myself and >send it to the list if I can get the time. > > > Well before you do that, you might want to look at pgsql-advocacy and pgsql-www. There are some arguments going on right now about that very subject :) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >Chris > > -- 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
I will, and glad to hear it is being worked on. Chris > > >I'm not talking about a ton of new content, just a simple, clean layout for > >the front page that's easier to use. I might even do a template myself and > >send it to the list if I can get the time. > > > > > > > Well before you do that, you might want to look at pgsql-advocacy and > pgsql-www. There > are some arguments going on right now about that very subject :) > > Sincerely, > > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > >Chris > > > > > > > -- > 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 > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >
Mensaje citado por Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>:
> Martin Marques wrote:
> > Not really. I just tried to look in the docs for the explicit for of
> > a CAST (really trying to find the link to send someone), and I just
> > couldn't find it. I know it's somewhere there, as I have read it
> > before, but not even the search engine installed in the interactive
> > docs seem to find that doc.
>
> If you want to find something in the documentation, there's an index at
> the end of it. I realize now that there's no entry for CAST, which I
> will fix. But if you find more terms that you would like to see in the
> index, write to pgsql-docs.
Well, this is something very interesting. I didn't know about pgsql-docs (maybe
it's because I go into the "lists" section in www.postgresql.org not looking at
the lists available, but looking for actual help on a certain list).
I will do so in the future. Thanks alot.
--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
---------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | Programador, DBA
Centro de Telemática | Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
---------------------------------------------------------
Mensaje citado por "Keith C. Perry" <netadmin@vcsn.com>:
>
> 3) Not being able to "find" something in via search BEFORE even reading the
> documentation is somewhat backwards. You have to at least get a feel for
> the docs before even know what to look for. That is not to say that the
> search engine is not problematic but it is to say that I'm am more and
> more
> convinced that knowing how to search more important than what is being
> searched for.
I am totally against this kind of believes.
Personally, I think that one of the most important caracteristics a book should
have is a VERY GOOD INDEX. This makes the searching easier.
I can remember starting with Informix, about 4 years ago, and I can say that
even not being excelent manuals the index really helped me and made me save
lots of time when trying to find a determinated information.
> BTW, I've asked this before but where are the 7.4 docs in PS or PDF format?
> If
> any one needs or wants them, I do have the 7.3.2-US books (admin, user,
> programmer & reference) in PS with the duplexing code. They all fit nicely
> in a
> 3" ring binder and will compliment any bookshelf :)
I had the 7.1 printed. Read most of it when my wife was in the hospital having
my daughter, and I had to stay there 2 days. :-)
--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
---------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | Programador, DBA
Centro de Telemática | Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
---------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:29:32PM -0300, Martin Marques wrote: > Mensaje citado por "Keith C. Perry" <netadmin@vcsn.com>: > > > > > 3) Not being able to "find" something in via search BEFORE even reading the > > documentation is somewhat backwards. You have to at least get a feel for > > the docs before even know what to look for. That is not to say that the > > search engine is not problematic but it is to say that I'm am more and > > more > > convinced that knowing how to search more important than what is being > > searched for. > > I am totally against this kind of believes. > Personally, I think that one of the most important caracteristics a book should > have is a VERY GOOD INDEX. This makes the searching easier. But the PG docs _have_ good indexes! (Much better than other docs for open source projects I have seen.) I for one have always found what I was looking for. Searching in a full text engine is a different matter and I agree it is lousy (maybe that's the reason I don't use it anymore). > I had the 7.1 printed. Read most of it when my wife was in the hospital having > my daughter, and I had to stay there 2 days. :-) Go figure. Maybe I'll start thinking about children so I can have a spare time to read documentation ... or maybe not ;-) -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "I think my standards have lowered enough that now I think 'good design' is when the page doesn't irritate the living f*ck out of me." (JWZ)
Mensaje citado por Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:29:32PM -0300, Martin Marques wrote:
> >
> > I am totally against this kind of believes.
> > Personally, I think that one of the most important caracteristics a book
> should
> > have is a VERY GOOD INDEX. This makes the searching easier.
>
> But the PG docs _have_ good indexes! (Much better than other docs for
> open source projects I have seen.) I for one have always found what I
> was looking for. Searching in a full text engine is a different matter
> and I agree it is lousy (maybe that's the reason I don't use it
> anymore).
CAST wasn't there. :-)
Any way, as I stated before, I find PG docs to be very good. But I know that they
can be even better, so that is what I'm aiming at.
> > I had the 7.1 printed. Read most of it when my wife was in the hospital having
> > my daughter, and I had to stay there 2 days. :-)
>
> Go figure. Maybe I'll start thinking about children so I can have a
> spare time to read documentation ... or maybe not ;-)
No Alvaro! I had does two days to read. Since then I have had lots of less time for
relaxing with a book. :-)
--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
---------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | Programador, DBA
Centro de Telemática | Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
---------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Matt Davies wrote: > > Acceptance of PG could be greatly accelerated by more: > 1. small projects using PG as a backend (as stated in previous thread post) > 2. documenation coming from multiple sources. Don't ask me to explain why, but > one seems to equate robustness, usability, etc... with the more titles one > sees. If you go to Barnes and Noble's and look there for DB books you see the > wall of red (Oracle books), black (M$oft), blue (MySQL). I simply point out > that perception being as it is - PG is not there. I am trying to learn more and > more about it to remedy my newcomer understanding of PG. Do not read this as if > I am a newbie to DB's; I am not ignorant. > I have just gone to www.barnesandnoble.com , and, searched on postgresql, and got 13 results - including the famous and previously mentioned "Teach Yourself PostgreSQL in 21 Days", by Chris Smith, published in December 2002! :) -- 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 ....................................................
From: "Keith C. Perry" <netadmin@vcsn.com> > 3) Not being able to "find" something in via search BEFORE even reading the > documentation is somewhat backwards. You have to at least get a feel for > the docs before even know what to look for. That is not to say that the > search engine is not problematic but it is to say that I'm am more and more > convinced that knowing how to search more important than what is being > searched for. Well put, and I like the other posts about the usefullness of a really good index. However, I think that there is an attitude that MySQL docs are better for beginners because the search really takes the place of the index. However, IMO, this masks a more subtle issue, see below. > > 4) As many people pointed out before, a product should not be technical > education it should product education. Some people take it as being rude > we some on-list says use google or check <some other site>. Granted > being told "this is not hand holding" is definitely a slap in the face its > been done to me and I'm sure there is a better way to put it but the > reality is that PG docs are very good. Get some paper and print > they out double-sided- they're an excellent reference. However, you have to > understand the basics first and that simply does not belong on the PG > site (save a link to some community recommendations). > I agree to a point, in that the PostgreSQL product documentation is product education, not general database education. However, the "community recommended links" approach has a number of difficiencies that I don't think have been discussed much: 1: Community maintained lists of links seems the easy way to go until those links become broken or change and need to be removed due to inaccurate content. It may be easier over the long term to maintain our own technical education database that we have control over. 2: You DO have a problem that PostgreSQL as a product assumes more general knowledge than MySQL. The docs tend to assume you know stuff, and it would be nice to have community maintained references on these general topics, perhaps on techdocs, perhaps elsewhere. 3: MySQL is a database engine which seems to make sense UNTIL you are technically educated. Competing with MySQL may mean being able to articulate why ACID complience is important, for example. Or why the database should abort the operation/transaction rather than truncate your data in a NUMERIC column. So what is the alternative? I am working on some documentation but my work is slowed by my laptop being in the shop. Perhaps we could have a technical education category in Techdocs? Best Wishes, Chris Travers
From: "Jonathan Bartlett" <johnnyb@eskimo.com> > We need a Postgres vs MySQL Mailing list :) you are going to laugh but I don't think that this is such a bad idea, provided that it is not limited to Postgres vs MySQL. Advocacy is good and all, but they are more interested in promoting PostgreSQL than discussing competitive issues. In fact, the general list seems to be dedicated to only 2 things: support of all types and PostgreSQL vs MySQL. I would suggest that we consider forming a pgsql-competitive email list for discussing PostgreSQL and how it compares with other database managers. We could then send out documents, etc. to other lists (general, advocacy, etc.) for more general consideration. We could then look at comparisons regarding Oracle, MySQL, MS SQL, etc. without cluttering this list or the Advocacy list with material that tends to be... voluminous but disorganized. The list could also serve as a place for consultants to go if they want competitive information relating to other products. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 10:18 pm, Chris Travers wrote:
> From: "Keith C. Perry" <netadmin@vcsn.com>
>
> > 3) Not being able to "find" something in via search BEFORE even reading
>
> the
>
> > documentation is somewhat backwards. You have to at least get a feel
>
> for
>
> > the docs before even know what to look for. That is not to say that
>
> the
>
> > search engine is not problematic but it is to say that I'm am more and
>
> more
>
> > convinced that knowing how to search more important than what is being
> > searched for.
>
> Well put, and I like the other posts about the usefullness of a really good
> index. However, I think that there is an attitude that MySQL docs are
> better for beginners because the search really takes the place of the
> index. However, IMO, this masks a more subtle issue, see below.
>
> > 4) As many people pointed out before, a product should not be technical
> > education it should product education. Some people take it as being
>
> rude
>
> > we some on-list says use google or check <some other site>. Granted
> > being told "this is not hand holding" is definitely a slap in the face
>
> its
>
> > been done to me and I'm sure there is a better way to put it but the
> > reality is that PG docs are very good. Get some paper and print
> > they out double-sided- they're an excellent reference. However, you
>
> have to
>
> > understand the basics first and that simply does not belong on the PG
> > site (save a link to some community recommendations).
>
> I agree to a point, in that the PostgreSQL product documentation is product
> education, not general database education. However, the "community
> recommended links" approach has a number of difficiencies that I don't
> think have been discussed much:
>
> 1: Community maintained lists of links seems the easy way to go until
> those links become broken or change and need to be removed due to
> inaccurate content. It may be easier over the long term to maintain our
> own technical education database that we have control over.
>
> 2: You DO have a problem that PostgreSQL as a product assumes more general
> knowledge than MySQL. The docs tend to assume you know stuff, and it would
> be nice to have community maintained references on these general topics,
> perhaps on techdocs, perhaps elsewhere.
>
> 3: MySQL is a database engine which seems to make sense UNTIL you are
> technically educated. Competing with MySQL may mean being able to
> articulate why ACID complience is important, for example. Or why the
> database should abort the operation/transaction rather than truncate your
> data in a NUMERIC column.
>
> So what is the alternative? I am working on some documentation but my work
> is slowed by my laptop being in the shop. Perhaps we could have a
> technical education category in Techdocs?
>
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
Basically it's a question of what product to compare postgresql with. If you
target the DB2 / Oracle / Sybase corner I don't think a lot of those admins
have a problem getting used to postgresql.
But looking around on the net and in paper publications makes it obvious that
postgresql is mostly compared to mysql - both being "open source" (well, to
some degree :-)) )
Coming from the classic DB systems around I found it much easier to use
postgresql than to use mysql - things like transactions always were a given
fact for me, so I was utterly surprised not being able to set an isolation
level in mysql.
Having the usual comparison in mind I agree with Chris that at least a link
collection to sources that educate the "average ms-access user" about basic
database concepts might prove very useful - even if people won't read it, but
at least it's much easier to point them to the right place instead of
repeating the same things over and over again.
My $0.01 <- only one cent here - need the other one for another email :-)
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)
iD8DBQFABkmFjqGXBvRToM4RApSBAJ9+fKmSg9y+9O3r94PzHv2kKP/hkwCgwplv
HRVWOPFHQ6WBqUHEjq1CLlc=
=LVQX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>: > > >Look I love postgresql, but reality is reality. The database itself is > >great, the documentation is pretty good, but a lot of the other things > about > >postgresql (like the website) need a lot of work. Postgresql gives the > >impression of being a second rate disorganized product if you were to just > >go by the website alone. > > > Isn't that true of just about any OSS project? Heck, Linux doesn't even > have a website ;). > MySQL is not an OSS project, it is an OSS product with a commercial > company backing > it. There is a big difference. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake You're kidding me... linux.org linux.com (ewwww, way to cluttered these days) linuxhq.org linuxhq.com (looks like their undergoing a facelift) I seem to remember someone saying that PG is supposed to be leaning towards being more like a "kernel" so I would like one day the site might become conceptually like linux.org in the sense that they point you toward the various distributions of Linux. Comments? -- 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 Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Rick Gigger wrote:
> > >Does anyone have any experience with postgers full text search?
> > >
> > It works well but it is my understanding that our docs search doesn't
> > use PostgreSQL
> > and TSearch. It uses PostgreSQL monogo search or something like that.
>
> That's good to hear. What is monogo and is it the problem here? Why don't
> it use TSearch if it is better? Is it just a matter of someone taking the
> time to set it up?
>
I don't understand also, why not use tsearch2 for searching postgresql
documentation. All docs contains about 10-20 K unique words !
Searching arhives is another story and we're working on it on www.pgsql.ru
btw, have you seen it ?
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >That's good to hear. What is monogo and is it the problem here? Why don't
> >it use TSearch if it is better? Is it just a matter of someone taking the
> >time to set it up?
> >
> >
> It is a little more complicated than that. Monogo or whatever it is
> called is more
> like a web spider that uses postgresql. Thus we can search the entire
> postgresql
> website. Tsearch is more about text search within PostgreSQL so we would
> have
> to load the books etc... into the database. That is not as easy as it
> sounds.
Then use OpenFTS if you prefer to store documents outside of database.
I don't see any problem to develop separate search on official postgres
documentations.
>
> Also if you are looking for something very cool... check out www.pgsql.ru
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
why not use pgsql-chat, which isn't being used at all right now ... ? On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Chris Travers wrote: > From: "Jonathan Bartlett" <johnnyb@eskimo.com> > > We need a Postgres vs MySQL Mailing list :) > > you are going to laugh but I don't think that this is such a bad idea, > provided that it is not limited to Postgres vs MySQL. Advocacy is good and > all, but they are more interested in promoting PostgreSQL than discussing > competitive issues. In fact, the general list seems to be dedicated to only > 2 things: > support of all types and > PostgreSQL vs MySQL. > > I would suggest that we consider forming a pgsql-competitive email list for > discussing PostgreSQL and how it compares with other database managers. We > could then send out documents, etc. to other lists (general, advocacy, etc.) > for more general consideration. > > We could then look at comparisons regarding Oracle, MySQL, MS SQL, etc. > without cluttering this list or the Advocacy list with material that tends > to be... voluminous but disorganized. > > The list could also serve as a place for consultants to go if they want > competitive information relating to other products. > > Best Wishes, > Chris Travers > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
>You're kidding me... > > > No I am not... You missed the point, there is no official Linux website. Linux.org is ran by one guy, linux.com is run by VA (I actually used to have poet@linux.com), I own Linuxdoc.org and Linuxdoc.com... The closest you get to a "linux" website is kernel.org. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >linux.org >linux.com (ewwww, way to cluttered these days) >linuxhq.org >linuxhq.com (looks like their undergoing a facelift) > > >I seem to remember someone saying that PG is supposed to be leaning towards >being more like a "kernel" so I would like one day the site might become >conceptually like linux.org in the sense that they point you toward the various >distributions of Linux. > >Comments? > > > -- 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 PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
> why not use pgsql-chat, which isn't being used at all right now ... ? >> >> I would suggest that we consider forming a pgsql-competitive email >> list for Whatever, but using another mailing is definitely an excellent idea. I actually stopped reading -general recently because it got bogged down in yet another PostgreSQL vs MySQL debate. And the same happens to advocacy too, although less frequently. Then again this means that whoever moderates -general (is that you Marc?) would have to move PostgreSQL vs MySQL threads to the other mailing list whenever they crop up, otherwise any benefits will be lost. Cheers. --------------- Francois Home page: http://www.monpetitcoin.com/ "Would Descartes have programmed in Pascal?" - Umberto Eco
Hi all, I have the impression that these "Postgres vs MySQL vs XXX" stuff is regularly started up by newcomers to this list. So wherever you will decide to move it, it will still pop up here - the new-comers will know nothing about being elsewhere, except it is called something very-very suggestive, like "postgres-mysql-compare". Even then, it will pop up here too, and it carries the risk of heated answers even from long term subscribers. Could this be really moderated ? If there is to be a new list, please name it very-very suggestively, otherwise it has no point. Cheers, Csaba. On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 16:14, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > why not use pgsql-chat, which isn't being used at all right now ... ? > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Chris Travers wrote: > > > From: "Jonathan Bartlett" <johnnyb@eskimo.com> > > > We need a Postgres vs MySQL Mailing list :) > > > > you are going to laugh but I don't think that this is such a bad idea, > > provided that it is not limited to Postgres vs MySQL. Advocacy is good and > > all, but they are more interested in promoting PostgreSQL than discussing > > competitive issues. In fact, the general list seems to be dedicated to only > > 2 things: > > support of all types and > > PostgreSQL vs MySQL. > > > > I would suggest that we consider forming a pgsql-competitive email list for > > discussing PostgreSQL and how it compares with other database managers. We > > could then send out documents, etc. to other lists (general, advocacy, etc.) > > for more general consideration. > > > > We could then look at comparisons regarding Oracle, MySQL, MS SQL, etc. > > without cluttering this list or the Advocacy list with material that tends > > to be... voluminous but disorganized. > > > > The list could also serve as a place for consultants to go if they want > > competitive information relating to other products. > > > > Best Wishes, > > Chris Travers > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > > > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>: > > >You're kidding me... > > > > > > > No I am not... You missed the point, there is no official Linux website. > Linux.org is ran by one guy, > linux.com is run by VA (I actually used to have poet@linux.com), I own > Linuxdoc.org and Linuxdoc.com... > The closest you get to a "linux" website is kernel.org. > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake Then the word "official" is ambiguous and perhaps not even applicable. If a site is NOT run by Linus is it not official? Due to how Linux is structured is hard to say what is "official" (if you believe that concept applies). That is one of the things MS is expliot about Linux and OSS in general. > >linux.org > >linux.com (ewwww, way to cluttered these days) > >linuxhq.org > >linuxhq.com (looks like their undergoing a facelift) > > > > > >I seem to remember someone saying that PG is supposed to be leaning towards > >being more like a "kernel" so I would like one day the site might become > >conceptually like linux.org in the sense that they point you toward the > various > >distributions of Linux. > > > >Comments? > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 > PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL > -- 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
Csaba Nagy <nagy@ecircle-ag.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 16:14, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> why not use pgsql-chat, which isn't being used at all right now ... ?
> I have the impression that these "Postgres vs MySQL vs XXX" stuff is
> regularly started up by newcomers to this list. So wherever you will
> decide to move it, it will still pop up here - the new-comers will know
> nothing about being elsewhere, except it is called something very-very
> suggestive, like "postgres-mysql-compare".
> Even then, it will pop up here too, and it carries the risk of heated
> answers even from long term subscribers. Could this be really moderated
> ?
> If there is to be a new list, please name it very-very suggestively,
> otherwise it has no point.
I think this analysis is dead-on. Pointing to pgsql-chat won't
accomplish anything.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Francois Suter wrote: > > why not use pgsql-chat, which isn't being used at all right now ... ? > >> > >> I would suggest that we consider forming a pgsql-competitive email > >> list for > > Whatever, but using another mailing is definitely an excellent idea. I > actually stopped reading -general recently because it got bogged down > in yet another PostgreSQL vs MySQL debate. And the same happens to > advocacy too, although less frequently. > > Then again this means that whoever moderates -general (is that you > Marc?) would have to move PostgreSQL vs MySQL threads to the other > mailing list whenever they crop up, otherwise any benefits will be > lost. actually, nobody "moderates" any of the lists, except for pgsql-www, and that is only for subscribers ... What it means is that those that are on this list, if they see a tangent tread popping up, need to learn to respond to the correct list, CC'ng in the original poster, so that subsequent responses go to the other list ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > Csaba Nagy <nagy@ecircle-ag.com> writes: > > On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 16:14, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> why not use pgsql-chat, which isn't being used at all right now ... ? > > > I have the impression that these "Postgres vs MySQL vs XXX" stuff is > > regularly started up by newcomers to this list. So wherever you will > > decide to move it, it will still pop up here - the new-comers will know > > nothing about being elsewhere, except it is called something very-very > > suggestive, like "postgres-mysql-compare". > > Even then, it will pop up here too, and it carries the risk of heated > > answers even from long term subscribers. Could this be really moderated > > ? > > If there is to be a new list, please name it very-very suggestively, > > otherwise it has no point. > > I think this analysis is dead-on. Pointing to pgsql-chat won't > accomplish anything. No, but if ppl change the CC to pgsql-general to pgsql-chat, so that there responses went to that list and didn't go to -general, ppl would slowly learn ... Even if the Postgress and MYSQL thread was originally sent to -general, if everyone that responded ot it changed pgsql-general -> pgsql-chat, then the onoly thing that would have touched the -general list would have been that original message ... Its a matter of how much energy ppl are willing to expend on keeping the lists more pure, that's all ... again, as long as you CC in the person that started it originally, so that they know that the topic has shifted to a different list ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
I am currently evaluating all open source databases and possibly my fresh
opinion will be of interest.
I went over documentation and setup of Firebird, MySQL and PostgreSql and
here is "perception"(to get better understanding one has to run thing for
quite a while):
As for "user friendly" image: Firebird and MySQL are ok, PostgreSQL's web
site really has some glitches. Example, a search on everything more then 1-2
words never completes, i.e. one immeadiately notices SQL datbase runing
behind the scene... :-(
As for SQL features, Firebird and PostgreSQL are close - both have a
"triplet": stored procedures, triggers, views.
MySQL however has plans for all that in the next version.
As for speed: MySQL claims supremacy, at least that's in the benchmarks which
innoDB and mysql sites provide.
As for architecture then multi-versioning is implemented the same way for
both Firebird and PostgreSQL and both have some troubles when collecting
garbage. innoDB of MySQL doesn't even hide they implemented things "like
Oracle"(i.e. rollback segments): this model is good for garbage collection
but can potentially terminate long running queries with kind of "ora-01555
snapshot to old" error. Personally I prefer rollback segments solution as old
versions are reclaimed behind the scene while "snapshot to old" error can be
delt with.
Otherwise Firebird seems to have plans for WAL and shared SQL buffer.
Therefor if all goes like planned then both internals(in terms of features
like WAL, shared SQL buffers and so on) and SQL features of all databases
will be extremely similar with some differences in multi-versioning handling.
MySQL may(just may) claim a better speed, Firebird and postgreSql will have
more standard("clean") SQL.
Here is this year's "database of the year" poll
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=116360
netadmin@vcsn.com ("Keith C. Perry") writes:
> Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>:
>> >Look I love postgresql, but reality is reality. The database itself is
>> >great, the documentation is pretty good, but a lot of the other things
>> about
>> >postgresql (like the website) need a lot of work. Postgresql gives the
>> >impression of being a second rate disorganized product if you were to just
>> >go by the website alone.
>> >
>> Isn't that true of just about any OSS project? Heck, Linux doesn't even
>> have a website ;).
>> MySQL is not an OSS project, it is an OSS product with a commercial
>> company backing it. There is a big difference.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Joshua D. Drake
>
> You're kidding me...
>
> linux.org
> linux.com (ewwww, way to cluttered these days)
> linuxhq.org
> linuxhq.com (looks like their undergoing a facelift)
for i in linux.com linux.org linux.info linuxhq.org linuxhq.com; do
> echo $i
> whois $i | grep -i -4 Registrant
> done | more_filtering
linux.com
Registrant:
VA Software Corporation (OSDN)
47071 Bayside Parkway
Fremont, CA 94538
US
linux.org
Registrant ID:22275688-NSI
Registrant Name:Linux Online, Inc
Registrant Organization:Linux Online, Inc
Registrant Street1:59 E. River St, #2
Registrant City:Ogdensburg
Registrant State/Province:NY
Registrant Postal Code:13669
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Email:mmclagan@INVLOGIC.COM
linux.info
Trademark Number:4346339
Sponsoring Registrar:R110-LRMS
Status:ACTIVE
Status:OK
Registrant ID:C20726-LRMS
Registrant Name:Tokio Matsumoto
Registrant Organization:Bijou Co.ltd.
Registrant Street1:17-2 harumi-cho
Registrant City:kasugai
Registrant State/Province:Aichi
Registrant Postal Code:4860837
Registrant Country:JP
Registrant Phone:+81.0568568208
Registrant FAX:+81.0568568208
Registrant Email:cupfarm@kctv.ne.jp
linuxhq.org
Last Updated On:19-Nov-2003 19:30:36 UTC
Expiration Date:16-Dec-2005 05:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:R91-LROR
Status:OK
Registrant ID:GODA-01869555
Registrant Name:Taylor Kimball
Registrant Street1:5701 Lindero Canyon Road
Registrant City:Westlake
Registrant State/Province:California
Registrant Postal Code:91364
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.8186180510
Registrant Email:taylorzanti@yahoo.com
linuxhq.com
Registrant:
Linux Headquarters, Inc (LINUXHQ-DOM)
59 E. River St, #2
Ogdensburg, NY 13669
US
Not a single one of these sites belongs to anyone with any official
standing vis-a-vis Linux.
Actually, if there _is_ an "official" Linux site, it is kernel.org:
$ whois kernel.org | filtering
Domain ID:D169413-LROR
Domain Name:KERNEL.ORG
Created On:07-Mar-1997 05:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:12-Jan-2004 05:33:05 UTC
Expiration Date:08-Mar-2009 05:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:R42-LROR
Status:OK
Registrant ID:0-698778-Gandi
Registrant Name:Transmeta Corporation
Registrant Organization:Transmeta Corporation
Registrant Street1:Attn: H. Peter Anvin
Registrant Street2:3990 Freedom Circle
Registrant City:Santa Clara
Registrant State/Province:California
Registrant Postal Code:95054
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Email:hostmaster@kernel.org
Peter Anvin, unlike all the other registrants of domains you
mentioned, is, in fact, a Linux developer.
>> MySQL is not an OSS project, it is an OSS product with a commercial
>> company backing it. There is a big difference.
I would reword that a bit...
MySQL(tm) is not an OSS project. It is a commercial product whose
owners permit access to an "OSS" version of it.
Furthermore, "MySQL" is not one thing, but rather _three_ things, all
of which are tightly held by one entity:
1. It is a trademark. You can't use it except with permission of 3.
2. That trademark is used to describe a set of products mostly having
to do with databases.
3. It is the name of a company, MySQL AB, that are the owners of 1
and 2.
Indeed, pointing back at #2, I would suggest that MOST of the
discussion has been overly loose in usage of the proprietary
trademarks. The vendor (#3) expects people describing the product in
public to properly reference the fact that it is a registered
trademark, via use of "(tm)".
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="libertyrms.info" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
<http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/>
Christopher Browne
(416) 646 3304 x124 (land)
jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
>>BTW, I've asked this before but where are the 7.4 docs in PS or PDF format? If
>>
>
> They are being worked on ;)
>
>>any one needs or wants them, I do have the 7.3.2-US books (admin, user,
>>programmer & reference) in PS with the duplexing code. They all fit nicely in a
>>3" ring binder and will compliment any bookshelf :)
Quick question that popped up when chatting with a friend that's
considering using PG...
The PDF documentation set didn't seem to have _valid_ links from
indices/table-of-contents to the 'destinations.' I don't recall
offhand; might this be that he grabbed something a bit old-and-broken?
Or have there been troubles with this with the DocBook tools?
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="libertyrms.info" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
<http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/>
Christopher Browne
(416) 646 3304 x124 (land)
""Bob Powell"" <Bob@hotchkiss.org> wrote in message news:s003d760.005@grpwise.hotchkiss.org... > To whom it may concern: > > I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little > disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. I continue to see > articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for development an > open_source web database. > > Why isn't PostgreSQL being considered or talked about by major industry > giants? As a DBA I know that Postgres is far superior to MYSQL but if > the industry directs it's energies towards open-source database this > coming year I think somehow PostgreSQL needs to be represented better. > Hear, hear! Almost all the replies are about technical superiority. But, as we have all seen dozens of times over, marketing trumps technology in the marketplace. So the only "fix" is to find vocal, clear and market-savvy evangelist(s) for Postgres. Doesn't even need to be technically savvy (probably helps if the person isn't). == Ezra Epostein.
After a long battle with technology, Bob@hotchkiss.org ("Bob Powell"), an earthling, wrote:
> To whom it may concern:
>
> I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
> disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. I continue to see
> articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for development an
> open_source web database.
>
> Why isn't PostgreSQL being considered or talked about by major industry
> giants? As a DBA I know that Postgres is far superior to MYSQL but if
> the industry directs it's energies towards open-source database this
> coming year I think somehow PostgreSQL needs to be represented better.
For IBM, in particular, it would be hugely counterproductive to point
people to something that might take away from the sales of their own
products. After all, they bought Informix and Universe, and developed
DB/2. There's presumably some money in the latter.
Furthermore, there's presumably some money in getting people to adopt
a product that has rudimentary support for what they need, and then,
when scalability proves troublesome, migrate them to DB/2.
Mind you, as the recent changes to the licensing and marketing of
MySQL AB get better known, it is also possible that IBM would
(correctly) perceive them as competition (irrespective of technical
merits), and either demand money for promoting the product, or cease
promoting it.
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://cbbrowne.com/info/nonrdbms.html
"very few people approach me in real life and insist on proving they
are drooling idiots." -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 11:40:04AM -0800, Chris Ochs wrote:
> I am playing around with Erserver, but the download has to be updated from
> cvs or it won't even compile (corrupted file in the distribution). It
Fixing this has been on my TODO list for several weeks now, but it
keeps failing to make it to the top. (Fortunately, at work vacations
are more or less all done, and we've hired another person, so I may
actually have some time soon to do something about this.)
> appears to me at first glance that it is not actively being worked on,
It certainly is. There's a mailing list where you can follow
development.
> The Erserver I downloaded is free, although I was confused also because I
> found that same page that said it was $1000. I'm still not sure if the
> erserver I downloaded is the only version, or if there is a commercial
> version?
There's a commercial version as well. It shares some of, but not all
of, the code.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
It never occurred to them that, if everyone had to think outside the box,
maybe it was the box that needed fixing.
--Malcom Gladwell
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 12:37:55PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >I used to have that complaint until I got more aquainted with the docs. > >When I used to use mysql I found that if I used search feature on their > >docs > >I could find exactly what I was looking for almost immediately. When I use > >the postgres doc search feature I don't get the same experience. It is > > > > > Our doc search sucks. No question... there has been some work recently on it > but it doesn't seem to be that reliable. So you have us on that one. Would there be any interest in a standalone, non web-based, version of the docs, with a built-in search engine? Similar to, say, MSDN or Qt documentation. Cheers, Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 11:40:04AM -0800, Chris Ochs wrote: > > > I am playing around with Erserver, but the download has to be updated from > > cvs or it won't even compile (corrupted file in the distribution). It > > Fixing this has been on my TODO list for several weeks now, but it > keeps failing to make it to the top. (Fortunately, at work vacations > are more or less all done, and we've hired another person, so I may > actually have some time soon to do something about this.) In fact we would announce it next week, but I and Nicolai Tufar patched eRServer current CVS version last week, since it fails to configure and compile on most systems. Here is the url for the patches and patched versions: http://www.tdmsoft.com/PostgreSQL/download/ We'll submit the patches to gborg next week. Regards, - -- Devrim GUNDUZ devrim@gunduz.org devrim.gunduz@linux.org.tr http://www.TDMSoft.com http://www.gunduz.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFADNXftl86P3SPfQ4RAjR2AKCtVMoDCIWh5aAnJKKlw/R+8em1VACfZCWR FZWueuj306ZVey/ihfI6scQ= =r+O5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 09:16:45AM +0200, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote: > In fact we would announce it next week, but I and Nicolai Tufar patched > eRServer current CVS version last week, since it fails to configure > and compile on most systems. Bug reports are welcome. I look forward to the patches. A -- Andrew Sullivan
Tom Lane wrote: > Csaba Nagy <nagy@ecircle-ag.com> writes: > > On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 16:14, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> why not use pgsql-chat, which isn't being used at all right now ... ? > > > I have the impression that these "Postgres vs MySQL vs XXX" stuff is > > regularly started up by newcomers to this list. So wherever you will > > decide to move it, it will still pop up here - the new-comers will know > > nothing about being elsewhere, except it is called something very-very > > suggestive, like "postgres-mysql-compare". > > Even then, it will pop up here too, and it carries the risk of heated > > answers even from long term subscribers. Could this be really moderated > > ? > > If there is to be a new list, please name it very-very suggestively, > > otherwise it has no point. > > I think this analysis is dead-on. Pointing to pgsql-chat won't > accomplish anything. I always felt advocacy was the right place for database comparisons directed to increasing market share. -- 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