Thread: postgresql book - practical or something newer?
Hey everybody. I was just informed that our organization has a credit at amazon.com and asked if I had any books I wanted. I've been thinking about getting a postgresql book, and from what I've seen and read Practical PostgreSQL seems to be the standard (as well as co-authored by Joshua Drake, somebody that has helped me many times on this very list) but the fact that it's based on 7.x worries me. I started using postgresql with 8.x on windows and I'm wondering if this book and it's teachings will help me or if I should look at something targeted at 8.x or windows. What do you guys think? -- Tom Hart IT Specialist Cooperative Federal 723 Westcott St. Syracuse, NY 13210 (315) 471-1116 ext. 202 (315) 476-0567 (fax)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:53:25 -0500 Tom Hart <tomhart@coopfed.org> wrote: > Hey everybody. I was just informed that our organization has a credit > at amazon.com and asked if I had any books I wanted. I've been > thinking about getting a postgresql book, and from what I've seen and > read Practical PostgreSQL seems to be the standard (as well as > co-authored by Joshua Drake, somebody that has helped me many times > on this very list) but the fact that it's based on 7.x worries me. I > started using postgresql with 8.x on windows and I'm wondering if > this book and it's teachings will help me or if I should look at > something targeted at 8.x or windows. What do you guys think? Pratical PostgreSQL is still a good reference but you can use the free web version as a reference. It lacks a lot of information that is very useful (ex, the books has zero idea of pg_stat_*). The Korry Douglas book is still reasonably relevant (as it covers 8) and is also a good book. I find that the best way to get what you need, is to read the fine manual from postgresql. Yes, its massive, unwieldy and in a lot of ways counter-intuitive (to a newbie) but if you have the terminology down you aren't going to find a more comprehensive text. Plus, when you find things that don't quite make sense you can submit a doc patch to make the docs that much better. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHn2oKATb/zqfZUUQRAtgCAKCOigLpBd9/EcYVPF/QsDvCYS3JugCggtS9 9QK5xte33f0/2+N/0pWOQvY= =ioXq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:53:25 -0500 > Tom Hart <tomhart@coopfed.org> wrote: > > >> Hey everybody. I was just informed that our organization has a credit >> at amazon.com and asked if I had any books I wanted. I've been >> thinking about getting a postgresql book, and from what I've seen and >> read Practical PostgreSQL seems to be the standard (as well as >> co-authored by Joshua Drake, somebody that has helped me many times >> on this very list) but the fact that it's based on 7.x worries me. I >> started using postgresql with 8.x on windows and I'm wondering if >> this book and it's teachings will help me or if I should look at >> something targeted at 8.x or windows. What do you guys think? >> > > Pratical PostgreSQL is still a good reference but you can use the free > web version as a reference. It lacks a lot of information that > is very useful (ex, the books has zero idea of pg_stat_*). The Korry > Douglas book is still reasonably relevant (as it covers 8) and is also > a good book. > > I find that the best way to get what you need, is to read the fine > manual from postgresql. Yes, its massive, unwieldy and in a lot of > ways counter-intuitive (to a newbie) but if you have the terminology > down you aren't going to find a more comprehensive text. > > Plus, when you find things that don't quite make sense you can submit > a doc patch to make the docs that much better. > > Sincerely, > > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > - -- > The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ > Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 > Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit > I've checked out the docs online, and they've helped me a great deal. I've also read excerpts from the free online version of practical. I'll stick with my current strategy of online docs/mailing list for now. BTW, thanks for not completely plugging your book. Have you guys considered authoring another on 8.x? -- Tom Hart IT Specialist Cooperative Federal 723 Westcott St. Syracuse, NY 13210 (315) 471-1116 ext. 202 (315) 476-0567 (fax)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:03:29 -0500 Tom Hart <tomhart@coopfed.org> wrote: > I've checked out the docs online, and they've helped me a great deal. > I've also read excerpts from the free online version of practical. > I'll stick with my current strategy of online docs/mailing list for > now. > > BTW, thanks for not completely plugging your book. Have you guys > considered authoring another on 8.x? I try to be reasonable (no laughing people :)). It's on the list, just like everything else. I doubt I would ever publish through a traditional house those. Something more along the lines of Lulu where the book can give the most use to the community. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHn22MATb/zqfZUUQRArn9AJ9gsuTcu7JUn8Y8Wf0eA6Dz2wluigCfbCzD YkpbHErXPvzkSUaToYy8lro= =uGIt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Jan 29, 2008 6:16 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > I try to be reasonable (no laughing people :)). Oh it's hard, so very, very hard! :-) /D
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:16 +0000, Dave Page wrote: > On Jan 29, 2008 6:16 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > > I try to be reasonable (no laughing people :)). > > Oh it's hard, so very, very hard! > But seriously, I've ranted on this some time ago( and you can tell that I'm about to start again) <rant> One of the worst aspect of PG is the documentation, or the lack of it in terms of "traditional" house. The Manual is fine and all, but in most cases, what I find that it lacks is actually examples. Either examples to show what it a particular field/query means but also as a way to show exactly how a particular problem can be solved. When I played with both MSSQL and MySQL, I had loads of books (and I bought a bit of it too, didn't bother subscribing to safari, it just ain't a book!) to be used as reference and what not. In PG, all there is, is the manual, a book by Robert Treat, the Book from Joshua, 1 or 2 other books authored by someone I can't remember etc and that's about it. Then I would have to go hunt(via google) for any bit of blog/ presentation slides from a meetup/talk etc for ways to find out how to do a particular thing. (Thanks Bruce M, Thanks Robert T - excellent partitioning talk!, Thanks PgCon!) and pore over those. Other than that, it's more or less, "Bang you head here" and "send email to the list and hope someone answers" I hang on to my O'reilly "SQL Hacks" book tightly as it gives me examples on how to solve a problem and even how other DBs solve it. I wish there was a book like MySQL Cookbook (which I have a copy) </rant>
"Ow Mun Heng" <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> writes: > <rant> > One of the worst aspect of PG is the documentation, or the lack of it in > terms of "traditional" house. The Manual is fine and all, but in most > cases, what I find that it lacks is actually examples. Either examples > to show what it a particular field/query means but also as a way to show > exactly how a particular problem can be solved. I always thought one of the best things about the manual was that it has tons of examples. Arguably too many examples for a reference manual but personally I find it easier to learn from examples than reference text anyways so I appreciate it. > When I played with both MSSQL and MySQL, I had loads of books (and I > bought a bit of it too, didn't bother subscribing to safari, it just > ain't a book!) to be used as reference and what not. > > In PG, all there is, is the manual, a book by Robert Treat, the Book > from Joshua, 1 or 2 other books authored by someone I can't remember etc > and that's about it. Actually there are several other books, but they're mostly out of date. This is the biggest source of the problem you're complaining about I think. Most of the features you're looking for documentation for will be from the last 2-3 years and it takes about that long for books to get into print. In fact I think most of the features you'll look for examples of will be from the last 1-2 years. When 8.3 comes out people will be looking for whole books on XML functionality, tsearch implementations, etc, and there will be nothing aside from the manual since they're all brand new features. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning
On 30/01/2008 11:27, Gregory Stark wrote: > In fact I think most of the features you'll look for examples of will be from > the last 1-2 years. When 8.3 comes out people will be looking for whole books > on XML functionality, tsearch implementations, etc, and there will be nothing > aside from the manual since they're all brand new features. Isn't this the idea of the interactive online docs? People can add stuff they find useful for others. The PHP docs have tons of extra snippets added by users - some dross, granted, but there's a lot of good stuff there too. Ray. --------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland rod@iol.ie ---------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:54 +0800, Ow Mun Heng wrote: > <rant> > One of the worst aspect of PG is the documentation, or the lack of it in > terms of "traditional" house. The Manual is fine and all, but in most > cases, what I find that it lacks is actually examples. Either examples > to show what it a particular field/query means but also as a way to show > exactly how a particular problem can be solved. With respect, I have to disagree here. The strength of PG's documentation is, in fact, one of the key reasons I switched my company completely off a commercial RDBMS and onto PostgreSQL. In my opinion, PostgreSQL has, hands-down, the best documentation of any FOSS package I've used, and it's better than much commercial documentation too. The development group seems to be be uncompromising in its dedication to keeping the documentation up-to-date, accurate, and thorough. You should see what some of these commercial vendors try to pass off as documentation! It's awful. I don't disagree with your point that it's not robust with examples of "exactly how a particular problem can be solved". But I think there are enough, and more importantly, I don't think problem-solving is an important focus for a manual (that's why 3rd party books exist). The manual needs to be *the* reference document so that end users don't need to read source code in order to understand how the system works. Example-oriented documentation has a tendency to skimp on the reference material and leave big gaping holes, in my experience. I like the reference focus of the existing PostgreSQL manual very much. -- Jason Topaz topaz@panix.com
On Jan 30, 2008 11:35 AM, Raymond O'Donnell <rod@iol.ie> wrote: > On 30/01/2008 11:27, Gregory Stark wrote: > > > In fact I think most of the features you'll look for examples of will be from > > the last 1-2 years. When 8.3 comes out people will be looking for whole books > > on XML functionality, tsearch implementations, etc, and there will be nothing > > aside from the manual since they're all brand new features. > > Isn't this the idea of the interactive online docs? People can add stuff > they find useful for others. The PHP docs have tons of extra snippets > added by users - some dross, granted, but there's a lot of good stuff > there too. It most certainly is, please, add away! The comments are moderated, so hopefully there's not too much dross in ours! /D
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:27:20 +0000 Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > "Ow Mun Heng" <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> writes: > > > <rant> > > One of the worst aspect of PG is the documentation, or the lack > > of it in terms of "traditional" house. The Manual is fine and > > all, but in most cases, what I find that it lacks is actually > > examples. Either examples to show what it a particular > > field/query means but also as a way to show exactly how a > > particular problem can be solved. > > I always thought one of the best things about the manual was that > it has tons of examples. Arguably too many examples for a reference > manual but personally I find it easier to learn from examples than > reference text anyways so I appreciate it. Evil is in the details. Some examples don't really show off the power of postgresql. Sometimes you look at an example, you know other related stuff and say... mmm I know I can push this further but how? How/where is it possible to submit doc patches? Even for older versions? There were things I didn't find so easy to understand/guess in the manual, no rocket science, I took note of them or I just found external pages that actually explained how to do that and I think their place should actually be in the manual. BTW examples are a sort of specification too. I wouldn't underestimate their more formal value. So I think they should be part of *the* reference documentation with example output as well. They shouldn't be of the kind "how-to" but of the kind "you can't push the syntax further and this is what you'd expect as an output". Many things are already there in the "VI Reference section" but some are not, especially in the "V Server programming" part. -- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it
On 30/01/2008 12:12, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote: > Many things are already there in the "VI Reference section" but some > are not, especially in the "V Server programming" part. +1 The Server Programming section is where we really need lots of examples. Ray. --------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland rod@iol.ie ---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Tom Hart <tomhart@coopfed.org> wrote: [...] > I find that the best way to get what you need, is to read the fine > manual from postgresql. Yes, its massive, unwieldy and in a lot of > ways counter-intuitive (to a newbie) but if you have the terminology > down you aren't going to find a more comprehensive text. > I find the manual answers just about everything I've needed to answer. Personally though I find the on-line version somewhat slow/cumbersome to find what I'm looking for. Using Windows as my desktop machine (servers running Linux) I found the most accessible form of the manual was that distributed with pgAdminIII. Until recently they shipped a fully searchable Windows Help version of the latest manual which was fantastic. Unfortunately pgAdmin has now removed that section of the manual and simply links to the Postgres web-site. I can understand it was some work to put it in each time - but it was very useful. So much so when I get a chance I intend to find an older copy of pgAdmin and install just the manual from it. Has anyone else generated a Windows Help version of the manual? Is there a source version of the files used to generate it (pgAdmin people?)? I'd be interested in the amount of work needed to create the file - if not excessive I might volunteer to get it done again if people other than me might find it useful. Pete > Plus, when you find things that don't quite make sense you can submit > a doc patch to make the docs that much better. > > Sincerely, > > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > - -- > The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ > Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 > Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFHn2oKATb/zqfZUUQRAtgCAKCOigLpBd9/EcYVPF/QsDvCYS3JugCggtS9 > 9QK5xte33f0/2+N/0pWOQvY= > =ioXq > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Wilson T: 01707 891840 M: 07796 656566 http://www.yellowhawk.co.uk The information in this email is confidential and is intended for the addressee/s only. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the information contained in or attached to this email.
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:27:20 +0000 > Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > BTW examples are a sort of specification too. I wouldn't > underestimate their more formal value. So I think they should be part > of *the* reference documentation with example output as well. > They shouldn't be of the kind "how-to" but of the kind "you can't > push the syntax further and this is what you'd expect as an output". In the manual yes, but I think there's definately a need for a howto document, something that demonstrates how to handle typical database functionality in PgSQL. Many of the people I've convinced to start using PostgeSQL spend the first week or so asking me questions on how to do basic things in PostgreSQL. When I say that there's a manual, the complaint usually is what I've noticed myself: the manual is great for looking up individual facts, but your problem may consist of 15 facts and it's up to you to connect the dots. This can be very confusing and discouraging to the average MySQL migrator (ugh, I said the M word :) ) What people like about the books is that the books usually tackle reallife problems from start to finish. Shurely the PgSQL community must be able to piece together something like that? It doesn't have to be a paper-book, although there are companies that print on demand and ship directly to the customer. Isn't there a wiki somewhere that we can fill with reallife stuff? Then all 8.3 stuff could be added there to, even before 8.3 is released.
On Jan 30, 2008 12:45 PM, Peter Wilson <petew@yellowhawk.co.uk> wrote: > Has anyone else generated a Windows Help version of the manual? We distribute it with PostgreSQL - it's just not integrated with the pgAdmin help any more. You can even tell pgAdmin to use that if you don''t wish to use the online help. Regards, Dave.
Am Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2008 schrieb Raymond O'Donnell: > Isn't this the idea of the interactive online docs? People can add stuff > they find useful for others. Well, not really, for better or worse. Each release, we take the comments and either fold them into the main documentation or delete them. So the "interactive" feature is more of an easier way to submit additions or corrections; it is not meant to add a user-edited extra dimension to the documentation material. The well-hidden techdocs section of the web site is supposed to allow users to submit tips, articles, and the like, but I'm not sure how accessible that is. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Am Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2008 schrieb Ivan Sergio Borgonovo: > How/where is it possible to submit doc patches? pgsql-docs@postgresql.org -- The process is mostly the same as for normal code. The Developer section of the web site gives you more information. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Am Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2008 schrieb Peter Wilson: > Has anyone else generated a Windows Help version of the manual? It can be built from the source code using the "make htmlhelp" target in doc/src/sgml/. I don't know how to get from there to the final format, though. I understand it is proprietary. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Dave Page wrote:
good to know it still exists.
Is it only distributed with the Window distribution?
I only run Postgres on Linux boxes, but use a Windows desktop machine.
Is there a place where I can just download the .chm file without having to install Postgres on Windows?
All the best
Pete
Hi Dave,On Jan 30, 2008 12:45 PM, Peter Wilson <petew@yellowhawk.co.uk> wrote:Has anyone else generated a Windows Help version of the manual?We distribute it with PostgreSQL - it's just not integrated with the pgAdmin help any more. You can even tell pgAdmin to use that if you don''t wish to use the online help.
good to know it still exists.
Is it only distributed with the Window distribution?
I only run Postgres on Linux boxes, but use a Windows desktop machine.
Is there a place where I can just download the .chm file without having to install Postgres on Windows?
All the best
Pete
Regards, Dave. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: 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
--
| Peter Wilson T: 01707 891840 M: 07796 656566 http://www.yellowhawk.co.uk | The information in this email is confidential and is intended for the addressee/s only. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the information contained in or attached to this email. |
On Jan 30, 2008 1:34 PM, Peter Wilson <petew@yellowhawk.co.uk> wrote: > > Dave Page wrote: > > On Jan 30, 2008 12:45 PM, Peter Wilson <petew@yellowhawk.co.uk> wrote: > > > > Has anyone else generated a Windows Help version of the manual? > > We distribute it with PostgreSQL - it's just not integrated with the > pgAdmin help any more. You can even tell pgAdmin to use that if you > don''t wish to use the online help. > > Hi Dave, > good to know it still exists. > > Is it only distributed with the Window distribution? Yes, at present. I guess it's something we could add to the website though. /D
Dave Page wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 1:34 PM, Peter Wilson <petew@yellowhawk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2008 12:45 PM, Peter Wilson <petew@yellowhawk.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Has anyone else generated a Windows Help version of the manual?
>>
>>
>> Is it only distributed with the Window distribution?
>>
>
> Yes, at present. I guess it's something we could add to the website though.
>
> /D
>
That would get my vote - maybe as an extra column on the following page
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/manuals/
Pete
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
>
"vincent" <vinny@xs4all.nl> writes:
> In the manual yes, but I think there's definately a need for a howto
> document, something that demonstrates how to handle typical database
> functionality in PgSQL. Many of the people I've convinced to start using
> PostgeSQL spend the first week or so asking me questions on how to do
> basic things in PostgreSQL. When I say that there's a manual, the
> complaint usually is what I've noticed myself: the manual is great for
> looking up individual facts, but your problem may consist of 15 facts and
> it's up to you to connect the dots.
Surely even a book that's a little out-of-date can serve fine for that
kind of introduction?
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > "vincent" <vinny@xs4all.nl> writes: > >> In the manual yes, but I think there's definately a need for a howto >> document, something that demonstrates how to handle typical database >> functionality in PgSQL. Many of the people I've convinced to start using >> PostgeSQL spend the first week or so asking me questions on how to do >> basic things in PostgreSQL. When I say that there's a manual, the >> complaint usually is what I've noticed myself: the manual is great for >> looking up individual facts, but your problem may consist of 15 facts and >> it's up to you to connect the dots. >> > > Surely even a book that's a little out-of-date can serve fine for that > kind of introduction? > > regards, tom lane > I agree that it would be useful as an introduction, but I have 4 years of mySQL experience (I know, I'm sorry) and I've been working with postgres for the past 3-4 months during which time I've built a data mine by hand, and set up a few different web apps running against it (drupal, openreports, etc.) so I think I'm past the introduction phase. What I was looking for was an intermediate level (call me presumptuous) book with more performance tips and advanced techniques/functions. Even though this book may have some sort of this information in it, it's going to be based on 7.x and the entire thing is available online (as well as the docs, which personally I like). And on the subject of beginner's documentation, I think I learned a lot more playing/hacking/reading docs/posting here (of course that's always been my preferred learning method) then I would have with a book. Everybody has their own learning style and different things work well for different people. The key here is that when it's up to you to "connect the dots" then you learn what the dots are, how they relate to each other, and what each of them is for. That gives you a lot better understanding then "Just run SELECT count(*) FROM a LEFT JOIN...". Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong :-) -- Tom Hart IT Specialist Cooperative Federal 723 Westcott St. Syracuse, NY 13210 (315) 471-1116 ext. 202 (315) 476-0567 (fax)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:20:58 -0500 Tom Hart <tomhart@coopfed.org> wrote: > > regards, tom lane > > > I agree that it would be useful as an introduction, but I have 4 > years of mySQL experience (I know, I'm sorry) and I've been working > with postgres for the past 3-4 months during which time I've built a > data mine by hand, and set up a few different web apps running > against it (drupal, openreports, etc.) so I think I'm past the > introduction phase. What I was looking for was an intermediate level > (call me presumptuous) book with more performance tips and advanced > techniques/functions. Even though this book may have some sort of > this information in it, it's going to be based on 7.x and the entire > thing is available online (as well as the docs, which personally I > like). The above sounds like you want a cookbook not a manual. In proper open source fashion perhaps you could start documenting the things you learn and post them to Techdocs :) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHoMJ4ATb/zqfZUUQRAh5mAKCsjIbE7dw+fljZitcMpw0t7vd1vQCdHh9g i/I1lcXst6i+FfO5+JpKVrs= =cSfc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Tom Lane wrote: >> "vincent" <vinny@xs4all.nl> writes: >> >> >> Surely even a book that's a little out-of-date can serve fine for that >> kind of introduction? I guess the point is that using older books is the only option, there simple are no uptodate books available. People who want to use a book (and many do) are forced to learn PgSQL the way it was a few years ago. >> regards, tom lane >> > The key here is that when it's up to you to > "connect the dots" then you learn what the dots are, how they relate to > each other, and what each of them is for. True, but that only works for experienced 'nerds' who get a kick out of connecting dots. Joe Average want's a bit more assistance, a bit more guidance. In short; I think PgSQL needs a beginnersbook, an advanced-nerdy book, and a bible... oh yeah, we need a PgSQL bible, no doubt! :) Cookbooks are also nice, but I guess from a growth point of view a beginnersbook is definately a must-have.
--- vincent <vinny@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:27:20 +0000
> > Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >
> > BTW examples are a sort of specification too. I wouldn't
> > underestimate their more formal value. So I think they should be
> part
> > of *the* reference documentation with example output as well.
> > They shouldn't be of the kind "how-to" but of the kind "you can't
> > push the syntax further and this is what you'd expect as an
> output".
>
> In the manual yes, but I think there's definately a need for a
> howto
> document, something that demonstrates how to handle typical
> database
> functionality in PgSQL. Many of the people I've convinced to start
> using
> PostgeSQL spend the first week or so asking me questions on how to
> do
> basic things in PostgreSQL. When I say that there's a manual, the
> complaint usually is what I've noticed myself: the manual is great
> for
> looking up individual facts, but your problem may consist of 15
> facts and
> it's up to you to connect the dots.
>
More documentation would be nice, but surely it's more down to
getting the type of user base that write your average "how to" books?
The O'Reilly books seem to cover postgres quite nicely, however I've
only had a flick through in shops.
One thing's for sure, 2 months ago I signed up to the most common
postgresql and m*sql lists when I was trying to decide what was best
for our backend. At the time m*sql was my 1st choice, and it took me
less than a day to drop those toys in the street and decide
postgresql was the way forward.
___________________________________________________________
Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/
Glyn Astill wrote: > > More documentation would be nice, but surely it's more down to > getting the type of user base that write your average "how to" books? > The O'Reilly books seem to cover postgres quite nicely, however I've > only had a flick through in shops. > > One thing's for sure, 2 months ago I signed up to the most common > postgresql and m*sql lists when I was trying to decide what was best > for our backend. At the time m*sql was my 1st choice, and it took me > less than a day to drop those toys in the street and decide > postgresql was the way forward. > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/ > > I definitely think that the lists are one of the shining stars for postgresql support. I've learned some good reference stuff from online docs/google but the really tricky questions were only answered here, and amazingly enough, quickly and with good humor. Perhaps what we really need is somebody to comb through the archives looking for common problems or exceptional solutions and compile them into a "book". -- Tom Hart IT Specialist Cooperative Federal 723 Westcott St. Syracuse, NY 13210 (315) 471-1116 ext. 202 (315) 476-0567 (fax)
vincent wrote: > True, but that only works for experienced 'nerds' who get a kick out of > connecting dots. Joe Average want's a bit more assistance, a bit more > guidance. Have you read the Tutorial section of the docs? What do you feel it is missing? Can you contribute to it? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:55:12 -0500 Tom Hart <tomhart@coopfed.org> wrote: > I definitely think that the lists are one of the shining stars for > postgresql support. I've learned some good reference stuff from > online docs/google but the really tricky questions were only answered > here, and amazingly enough, quickly and with good humor. Perhaps what > we really need is somebody to comb through the archives looking for > common problems or exceptional solutions and compile them into a > "book". > /me looks hard at Tom Hart... "Yep, looks like a volunteer to me" said Bob. Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHoMnOATb/zqfZUUQRAjKPAJsEnY/OHS74AcRM3WoEdkIXWwChaACgnbcU VkU7J4iZfCiwcL8k0OqicgU= =bg/L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> vincent wrote: > >> True, but that only works for experienced 'nerds' who get a kick out of >> connecting dots. Joe Average want's a bit more assistance, a bit more >> guidance. > > Have you read the Tutorial section of the docs? What do you feel it is > missing? Can you contribute to it? > Yes I have. What's missing... well there are quite a few relatively basic things like sequences and it doesn't touch stored-procedures and triggers. I guess I could write something up in the 2.76 seconds of spare time I have every week :) But what I think would be really helpful is to get some organisation in the sources of information. Techdocs for example. Can't we gather all that information, validate it agains 8.2/8.3 and stick it into one big document and call it "the PgSQL big book of wonders"? Give it an exhaustive intro on every major aspect of PgSQL and that should setup users for life.
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:55:12 -0500 > Tom Hart <tomhart@coopfed.org> wrote: > > >> I definitely think that the lists are one of the shining stars for >> postgresql support. I've learned some good reference stuff from >> online docs/google but the really tricky questions were only answered >> here, and amazingly enough, quickly and with good humor. Perhaps what >> we really need is somebody to comb through the archives looking for >> common problems or exceptional solutions and compile them into a >> "book". >> >> > > /me looks hard at Tom Hart... > > "Yep, looks like a volunteer to me" said Bob. > > Joshua D. Drake > > - -- > The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ > Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 > Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFHoMnOATb/zqfZUUQRAjKPAJsEnY/OHS74AcRM3WoEdkIXWwChaACgnbcU > VkU7J4iZfCiwcL8k0OqicgU= > =bg/L > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > /me misses the good old days :-) I'm definitely willing to participate in this, or maybe just start it and pass it off, but as much as I'd love to put something like this together, I currently have no internet at home (I thought nerds weren't supposed to be dead poor) and doing this all at work wouldn't be my boss's idea of high productivity, though admittedly he is the one who got me into postgreSQL and is definitely open-source friendly. I just don't think he'll want to be paying me wages to create postgreSQL docs. Is there anybody else out there who is interested in working with me on a project like this? I think it'd be an excellent way to contribute back to the list/community for the assistance we've received here that wouldn't have been given anywhere else (especially not free of charge). My e-mail is tomhart@coopfed.org if you're interested. -- Tom Hart IT Specialist Cooperative Federal 723 Westcott St. Syracuse, NY 13210 (315) 471-1116 ext. 202 (315) 476-0567 (fax)
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 20:47 +0900, Jason Topaz wrote: > I don't disagree with your point that it's not robust with examples of > "exactly how a particular problem can be solved". But I think there are > enough, and more importantly, I don't think problem-solving is an > important focus for a manual (that's why 3rd party books exist). Which is also the cause of the original rant. There is very few 3rd party books.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:20:58 -0500 Tom Hart <tomhart@coopfed.org> wrote: > I have 4 years of mySQL experience (I know, I'm sorry) Why is this something to apologize for? I used to use MySQL for everything and now use PostgreSQL for the majority of my DB needs. I certainly advocate PG now to anyone who will listen, but I don't think it helps to portray MySQL as a POS or regret its existence. It's a very useful tool if used correctly. IMO, people who are able to effectively use PG/MySQL/Oracle/XYZ appropriately are more valuable than those that blindly use the same one for every single task. Sorry - I just noticed this in a couple recent posts and I felt like voicing my $0.02. Josh
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 20:14 -0600, Josh Trutwin wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:20:58 -0500 > Tom Hart <tomhart@coopfed.org> wrote: > > > I have 4 years of mySQL experience (I know, I'm sorry) > > Why is this something to apologize for? I used to use MySQL for > everything and now use PostgreSQL for the majority of my DB needs. I > certainly advocate PG now to anyone who will listen, but I don't > think it helps to portray MySQL as a POS or regret its existence. > It's a very useful tool if used correctly. IMO, people who are able > to effectively use PG/MySQL/Oracle/XYZ appropriately are more valuable > than those that blindly use the same one for every single task. Best tool for the JOB in my books. Heck, I'm even considering running MySQL through it's MyISAM backend as a slave to my PG master. Should(emphasis!) be plenty Fast
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:14:15 -0600 Josh Trutwin <josh@trutwins.homeip.net> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:20:58 -0500 > Tom Hart <tomhart@coopfed.org> wrote: > > > I have 4 years of mySQL experience (I know, I'm sorry) > > Why is this something to apologize for? I think he was apologizing to himself. After that much self inflicted pain, the inner psyche has to start to revolt. :P Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHoTOqATb/zqfZUUQRAoW5AJ0erekd/h9hln5C9KWMnmX6x36jxACfdeuX 28rj8nLZawFIl2R/5o+klsY= =Roxf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tom Hart wrote: > I definitely think that the lists are one of the shining stars for > postgresql support. I've learned some good reference stuff from online > docs/google but the really tricky questions were only answered here, and > amazingly enough, quickly and with good humor. Perhaps what we really > need is somebody to comb through the archives looking for common > problems or exceptional solutions and compile them into a "book". The good and bad news is that the best way to do things often changes from release to release, hence the need to get the most current information from the mailing lists. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian said:
> Tom Hart wrote:
> > I definitely think that the lists are one of the shining stars for
> > postgresql support. I've learned some good reference stuff from online
> > docs/google but the really tricky questions were only answered here, and
> > amazingly enough, quickly and with good humor. Perhaps what we really
> > need is somebody to comb through the archives looking for common
> > problems or exceptional solutions and compile them into a "book".
>
> The good and bad news is that the best way to do things often changes
> from release to release, hence the need to get the most current
> information from the mailing lists.
Although I have solved almost every problem I have come up against in learning, partly with archives, I've often had to resort to asking the list because finding relevant missives in the archives can be hard if you don't know what month to look at, and even then the search results can produce a lot incidental wanderings to get to the solutions.
It seems that some intermediate ground (TWIKI or a document in some format) might help with some of these questions, perhaps with sections based on release.
Personally, I found it very hard to get going with PL/pgSQL based on existing documentation; an older book on PostgreSQL had enough examples that I got over that hump and can usually find my way now with the documentation, lists and archives.
My $0.02 (inflating ? devalued 'cause it's US currency ?) ...
Greg Williamson
Senior DBA
GlobeXplorer LLC, a DigitalGlobe company
On Jan 31, 2008, at 12:51 AM, Gregory Williamson wrote: > Bruce Momjian said: > > > Tom Hart wrote: > > > I definitely think that the lists are one of the shining stars for > > > postgresql support. I've learned some good reference stuff from > online > > > docs/google but the really tricky questions were only answered > here, and > > > amazingly enough, quickly and with good humor. Perhaps what we > really > > > need is somebody to comb through the archives looking for common > > > problems or exceptional solutions and compile them into a "book". > > > > The good and bad news is that the best way to do things often > changes > > from release to release, hence the need to get the most current > > information from the mailing lists. > > Although I have solved almost every problem I have come up against > in learning, partly with archives, I've often had to resort to > asking the list because finding relevant missives in the archives > can be hard if you don't know what month to look at, and even then > the search results can produce a lot incidental wanderings to get > to the solutions. > > It seems that some intermediate ground (TWIKI or a document in some > format) might help with some of these questions, perhaps with > sections based on release. > That's an interesting idea. Is there a general audience/ participation wiki for Postgres? I know the developers have one, but a user-oriented sister wiki would probably be a good way to get lots of different people involved. Erik Jones DBA | Emma® erik@myemma.com 800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888 615.292.0777 (fax) Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style. Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Erik Jones wrote: > That's an interesting idea. Is there a general audience/ > participation wiki for Postgres? I know the developers have one, > but a user-oriented sister wiki would probably be a good way to get > lots of different people involved. I'm of the opinion that the documentation should provide guidance like best practices in addition to just being a reference. To that end, the "interactive" online docs seem like a great place for people to make suggestions and recommendations like this, and these comments can be folded into the next release of the docs.
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 02:54, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:16 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 2008 6:16 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > > I try to be reasonable (no laughing people :)).
> >
> > Oh it's hard, so very, very hard!
>
> But seriously, I've ranted on this some time ago( and you can tell that
> I'm about to start again)
>
> <rant>
> One of the worst aspect of PG is the documentation, or the lack of it in
> terms of "traditional" house. The Manual is fine and all, but in most
> cases, what I find that it lacks is actually examples. Either examples
> to show what it a particular field/query means but also as a way to show
> exactly how a particular problem can be solved.
>
> When I played with both MSSQL and MySQL, I had loads of books (and I
> bought a bit of it too, didn't bother subscribing to safari, it just
> ain't a book!) to be used as reference and what not.
>
> In PG, all there is, is the manual, a book by Robert Treat, the Book
> from Joshua, 1 or 2 other books authored by someone I can't remember etc
> and that's about it.
>
> Then I would have to go hunt(via google) for any bit of blog/
> presentation slides from a meetup/talk etc for ways to find out how to
> do a particular thing. (Thanks Bruce M, Thanks Robert T - excellent
> partitioning talk!, Thanks PgCon!) and pore over those.
>
> Other than that, it's more or less, "Bang you head here" and "send email
> to the list and hope someone answers"
>
> I hang on to my O'reilly "SQL Hacks" book tightly as it gives me
> examples on how to solve a problem and even how other DBs solve it.
>
> I wish there was a book like MySQL Cookbook (which I have a copy)
> </rant>
Just so you know, I approached OReally about writing a PostgreSQL Cookbook,
and they turned it down. They did offer me some other titles, but those don't
seem to have gone anywhere.
I have thought of going the self-publishing route, but the reason against it
is the same one as you don't see a lot of book publishers working on PG
books; the sales just aren't that strong.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: > Just so you know, I approached OReally about writing a PostgreSQL Cookbook, > and they turned it down. They did offer me some other titles, but those don't > seem to have gone anywhere. As someone else pointed out in this thread, very much of what you need to know has been previously discussed at one point; the hard part is finding it. What we need is for some of the people with the big brains ;) to come up with some new kind of "hyperbook". That would be the documentation in some form similar to what it is today, but somehow connected to the discussions that happen in the mailing lists. That way, when something really insightful or helpful gets said in the mailing lists, it can get connected to a particular place in the documentation. Then over time, the doc maintainers can take the best of those and incorporate them directly into the docs at the appropriate place. This would not only benefit those looking for information, but also those hearty and knowledgeable souls (like Tom) who patiently provide it repeatedly as the same questions pop up every couple weeks/months. Plus, the documentation would grow and become much more useful over time. Then, instead of repeating answers to repeating questions, we can just point to the appropriate place in the docs. The "unattached" discussions could identify sections lacking in the docs; i.e., if enough unattached discussions accumulate for a particular topic, then that probably indicates the need for a new section in the docs on that topic. To be honest, I think a hyperbook would be easier to implement with forums than with mailing lists. The former are permanently resident in a known place, while the latter are out there in the ether (or in some unorganized archive that is notoriously hard to link to.) -- Guy Rouillier
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Robert Treat wrote: > Just so you know, I approached OReally about writing a PostgreSQL Cookbook, > and they turned it down. They did offer me some other titles, but those don't > seem to have gone anywhere. I think the market for a PostgreSQL book is limited by a few things: 1) There just aren't that many potential buyers (yet!) 2) The included documentation is too good 3) There's way too much community-generated material like the mailing lists available 4) Multiple earlier free books are already floating around You almost have to go out of your way to cover material that isn't in the manual to get something that's worth buying in book form, but then it's hard to find a market for that--so much of the popular material is already in there. > I have thought of going the self-publishing route, but the reason against it > is the same one as you don't see a lot of book publishers working on PG > books; the sales just aren't that strong. For publishing a book to make sense, you have to get more in sales than the author could have made doing other work rather than working on the book. That's still tough for anyone qualified to write about PostgreSQL. I think there's enormous potential for an online book that referenced the existing manual heavily, serving more as an tutorial index to help guide people through that document. "Potential" from the perspective of being useful, not so much as a way for the author to get much out of spending that time. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
On Jan 31, 2008 4:40 PM, Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1@burntmail.com> wrote: > Robert Treat wrote: > > > Just so you know, I approached OReally about writing a PostgreSQL Cookbook, > > and they turned it down. They did offer me some other titles, but those don't > > seem to have gone anywhere. > > As someone else pointed out in this thread, very much of what you need > to know has been previously discussed at one point; the hard part is > finding it. > > What we need is for some of the people with the big brains ;) to come up > with some new kind of "hyperbook". That would be the documentation in > some form similar to what it is today, but somehow connected to the > discussions that happen in the mailing lists. That way, when something > really insightful or helpful gets said in the mailing lists, it can get > connected to a particular place in the documentation. Then over time, > the doc maintainers can take the best of those and incorporate them > directly into the docs at the appropriate place. The trouble is that this is nearly as much trouble as actually writing a book, and doesn't provide a clear incentive for people to put in the effort of making it happen. There's the problem (and it is, to a degree, truly a problem) that the "postgreSQL book" market hasn't been lucrative enough to draw people into writing books. And honestly, it *needs* to be more lucrative. If I'm thinking about alternative uses for my spare time, writing does not appear to be a particularly profitable use. Finding a "poor man's way" to generate a "hyperbook" actually needs much the same sorts of skills and efforts, even though it probably provides those that provide the effort with *less* benefits. -- http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -- assortedly attributed to Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Rita Mae Brown, and Rudyard Kipling
Christopher Browne wrote: > On Jan 31, 2008 4:40 PM, Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1@burntmail.com> wrote: > >> Robert Treat wrote: >> >> >>> Just so you know, I approached OReally about writing a PostgreSQL Cookbook, >>> and they turned it down. They did offer me some other titles, but those don't >>> seem to have gone anywhere. >>> >> As someone else pointed out in this thread, very much of what you need >> to know has been previously discussed at one point; the hard part is >> finding it. >> >> What we need is for some of the people with the big brains ;) to come up >> with some new kind of "hyperbook". That would be the documentation in >> some form similar to what it is today, but somehow connected to the >> discussions that happen in the mailing lists. That way, when something >> really insightful or helpful gets said in the mailing lists, it can get >> connected to a particular place in the documentation. Then over time, >> the doc maintainers can take the best of those and incorporate them >> directly into the docs at the appropriate place. >> > > The trouble is that this is nearly as much trouble as actually writing > a book, and doesn't provide a clear incentive for people to put in the > effort of making it happen. > > There's the problem (and it is, to a degree, truly a problem) that the > "postgreSQL book" market hasn't been lucrative enough to draw people > into writing books. And honestly, it *needs* to be more lucrative. > If I'm thinking about alternative uses for my spare time, writing does > not appear to be a particularly profitable use. > > Finding a "poor man's way" to generate a "hyperbook" actually needs > much the same sorts of skills and efforts, even though it probably > provides those that provide the effort with *less* benefits. > Personally I'm surprised that the last couple responses seem to center around not being able to make much money off of it. I agree that it would require some time investment, but so did building PG in the first place. Countless people have already sacrificed hours upon hours of their time with no return on their investment except pride in their work and a better overall product for everybody to use. I'm not a talented enough programmer to contribute to the code, but in this way I can do something to give back to the pg community. -- Tom Hart IT Specialist Cooperative Federal 723 Westcott St. Syracuse, NY 13210 (315) 471-1116 ext. 202 (315) 476-0567 (fax)
> Christopher Browne wrote: >> > Personally I'm surprised that the last couple responses seem to center > around not being able to make much money off of it. I agree that it > would require some time investment, but so did building PG in the first > place. Countless people have already sacrificed hours upon hours of > their time with no return on their investment except pride in their work > and a better overall product for everybody to use. I'm not a talented > enough programmer to contribute to the code, but in this way I can do > something to give back to the pg community. > > -- > Tom Hart +1 It seems there's a stalemate, apparently PgSQL needs to be more popular before authors want to write for it, and the public doesn't want to commit to a database that has only a handfull of books available. So, let's do it community-style: wiki. Lots of people have a little time to write a small piece, all we need is a few good men (or women) to oversee the whole thing. Later we can paste all the content together in a PDF. We could arrange a 'print on demand' service and there we are; a book with uptodate firsthand knowledge.
On Feb 4, 2008 3:48 PM, vincent <vinny@xs4all.nl> wrote: > So, let's do it community-style: wiki. Lots of people have a little time > to write a small piece, all we need is a few good men (or women) to > oversee the whole thing. Thats what techdocs is for. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs Feel free to write new articles or improve what is there already. Regards, Dave.
On Feb 4, 2008 3:31 PM, Tom Hart <tomhart@coopfed.org> wrote: > > Christopher Browne wrote: > > On Jan 31, 2008 4:40 PM, Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1@burntmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Robert Treat wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Just so you know, I approached OReally about writing a PostgreSQL Cookbook, > >>> and they turned it down. They did offer me some other titles, but those don't > >>> seem to have gone anywhere. > >>> > >> As someone else pointed out in this thread, very much of what you need > >> to know has been previously discussed at one point; the hard part is > >> finding it. > >> > >> What we need is for some of the people with the big brains ;) to come up > >> with some new kind of "hyperbook". That would be the documentation in > >> some form similar to what it is today, but somehow connected to the > >> discussions that happen in the mailing lists. That way, when something > >> really insightful or helpful gets said in the mailing lists, it can get > >> connected to a particular place in the documentation. Then over time, > >> the doc maintainers can take the best of those and incorporate them > >> directly into the docs at the appropriate place. > >> > > > > The trouble is that this is nearly as much trouble as actually writing > > a book, and doesn't provide a clear incentive for people to put in the > > effort of making it happen. > > > > There's the problem (and it is, to a degree, truly a problem) that the > > "postgreSQL book" market hasn't been lucrative enough to draw people > > into writing books. And honestly, it *needs* to be more lucrative. > > If I'm thinking about alternative uses for my spare time, writing does > > not appear to be a particularly profitable use. > > > > Finding a "poor man's way" to generate a "hyperbook" actually needs > > much the same sorts of skills and efforts, even though it probably > > provides those that provide the effort with *less* benefits. > > > Personally I'm surprised that the last couple responses seem to center > around not being able to make much money off of it. I agree that it > would require some time investment, but so did building PG in the first > place. Countless people have already sacrificed hours upon hours of > their time with no return on their investment except pride in their work > and a better overall product for everybody to use. I'm not a talented > enough programmer to contribute to the code, but in this way I can do > something to give back to the pg community. It's not all purely "charity," and the point was never about trying to "make as much money as possible" off of it. And I think the frequency of "no return on their investment" is rather lower than you do. It is typical for people to add features to free software systems *that they find useful.* There are quite a number of people paid to work on PG; the people that pay them *DO* expect a return on this investment. There is a deep, fundamental problem with documentation: - Those people that *UNDERSTAND* things well enough to be able to write something worth reading need to be about as knowledgeable as the "deep in the weeds developers." - It's regarded as being much easier than that. GOOD documentation (as opposed to "whatever crud we might put up at some web page") isn't easy to get, and requires a substantial investment of time and effort. Given that people have many things competing for their time, I don't think it's at all strange to expect that this investment lead to some kind of substantial benefit. -- http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -- assortedly attributed to Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Rita Mae Brown, and Rudyard Kipling
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Dave Page wrote: > On Feb 4, 2008 3:48 PM, vincent <vinny@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> So, let's do it community-style: wiki. > > Thats what techdocs is for. > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs > Feel free to write new articles or improve what is there already. Techdocs is a functional site to post completed articles. The level of work and administration involved in making even simple edits, combined with the lack of tools for managing what other people are doing, make it dramatically less productive for collaborative projects than true Wiki tools like the Mediawiki used on the developer's site. Examples of issues that slow things down considerably are the whole save before preview model of techdocs and problems that creep in if you switch between its limited WYSIWIG editor and the HTML editor extensively (just the fact that there is such a distinction is its own problem, and if you do all your work in the HTML version you are forced to switch between then). The main thing it's completely missing is a trivial to use diff and revert. Sadly some people just don't know what they should and shouldn't be changing, and it's highly useful for tracking what the other good people are doing once the pages get bigger if you want to keep general progress going forward in a consistant way. It may be possible to build some new community-generated "not the manual" documentation on a real Wiki platform. I think hobbling it with the restrictions of techdocs would be a fatal to such a project. How hard would it be to clone the configuration of the developer's wiki and make a new page like it for this purpose, something like userdocs.postgresql.org? -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
On Feb 4, 2008 6:12 PM, Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> wrote: > How hard would it be to clone the configuration of the developer's wiki > and make a new page like it for this purpose, something like > userdocs.postgresql.org? We intentionally have not done that as we wanted to ensure that all documentation published under postgresql.org was appropriately moderated first. /D
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Dave Page wrote: > We intentionally have not done that as we wanted to ensure that all > documentation published under postgresql.org was appropriately > moderated first. OK, so hosting a probably inaccurate in many ways (at first) community documentation project wiki is inappropriate for a postgresql.org page; completely understandable. That "moderated first" thing is part of the problem with using Techdocs I already mentioned. Can anyone think of another place a community docs wiki could go at? I don't have any good web hosting facilities here right now. I just took a look at buying a cheap host somewhere, but I feel it would be inappropriate to host a PostgreSQL documentation wiki on a shared host where the underlying database was *censored*. The 8.3 launch yesterday gave me a perfect example of why this would be helpful. I was blasting away in the Slashdot FUD about the release (with Dave Fetter and Neil) and somebody stopped me cold with a comment about their last eval of PostgreSQL. They'd ended up so confused by the initial config they said "the default install iirc uses unix users to authenticate into their own databases, whereas mysql has its own internal user database" (completely understandable mistake given the old defaul auth setup) and their comment on the big manual was "I can never find what I'm looking for." When I sat down to write about the parts they were missing, it was all in the manual, but boy did it take me a while to assemble it all. Open the manual and think like a newbie one day and you'll see what I mean--Chapter 15, "Installation Instructions", are not what people expect, and the pieces I think most people need are scattered. I don't think this is a problem to "fix" in the manual, it's just that the manual's audience and the newbie requirements are really far apart. The response I wrote is at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=441604&cid=22301248 It struck me that what I'd just written would make a nice first draft for a "Getting started with PostgreSQL" page for the UNIX CLI crowd, and if I could dump that into a reusable, upgradable form easily I'd have just made a more permanent improvement to the community. The way pages like this get to be really good, though, is by being a wiki where people who find them not enough can improve them after they figure out the part that wasn't obvious when they first read it. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
Greg Smith wrote: > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Dave Page wrote: > >> We intentionally have not done that as we wanted to ensure that all >> documentation published under postgresql.org was appropriately >> moderated first. > > OK, so hosting a probably inaccurate in many ways (at first) community > documentation project wiki is inappropriate for a postgresql.org page; > completely understandable. That "moderated first" thing is part of the > problem with using Techdocs I already mentioned. > > Can anyone think of another place a community docs wiki could go at? I definitely think it should go on the official PostgreSQL site somewhere - that's where the community is. The documentation page already lists versions of the official docs "with comments". Isn't this an expansion of that? Anyone with a community account is free to post a comment. If all those comments are moderated, then I'd suggest either adding a "Community Version" directly on that page, or adding one to the community page off of Techdocs. -- Guy Rouillier
On Feb 5, 2008, at 11:02 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote: > Greg Smith wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Dave Page wrote: >>> We intentionally have not done that as we wanted to ensure that all >>> documentation published under postgresql.org was appropriately >>> moderated first. >> OK, so hosting a probably inaccurate in many ways (at first) >> community documentation project wiki is inappropriate for a >> postgresql.org page; completely understandable. That "moderated >> first" thing is part of the problem with using Techdocs I already >> mentioned. >> Can anyone think of another place a community docs wiki could go at? > > I definitely think it should go on the official PostgreSQL site > somewhere - that's where the community is. The documentation page > already lists versions of the official docs "with comments". Isn't > this an expansion of that? Anyone with a community account is > free to post a comment. > > If all those comments are moderated, then I'd suggest either adding > a "Community Version" directly on that page, or adding one to the > community page off of Techdocs. Something along those lines has already been suggested and the problem there is that comments in the reference manual are not the appropriate place for howtos, beginner's tutorials and the like. A public wiki, possibly with a couple volunteer editors to make sure that nothing blatantly wrong stays up for long, pretty much exactly fits the bill. I, for one, don't want to see the manual turn into something like the php manual in that the manual should have nothing but the facts without any chance of misinformation being included there. Erik Jones DBA | Emma® erik@myemma.com 800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888 615.292.0777 (fax) Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style. Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
> > On Feb 5, 2008, at 11:02 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote: > >> Greg Smith wrote: >>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Dave Page wrote: >>>> We intentionally have not done that as we wanted to ensure that all >>>> documentation published under postgresql.org was appropriately >>>> moderated first. >>> OK, so hosting a probably inaccurate in many ways (at first) >>> community documentation project wiki is inappropriate for a >>> postgresql.org page; completely understandable. That "moderated >>> first" thing is part of the problem with using Techdocs I already >>> mentioned. >>> Can anyone think of another place a community docs wiki could go at? >> >> I definitely think it should go on the official PostgreSQL site >> somewhere - that's where the community is. The documentation page >> already lists versions of the official docs "with comments". Isn't >> this an expansion of that? Anyone with a community account is >> free to post a comment. >> >> If all those comments are moderated, then I'd suggest either adding >> a "Community Version" directly on that page, or adding one to the >> community page off of Techdocs. > > Something along those lines has already been suggested and the > problem there is that comments in the reference manual are not the > appropriate place for howtos, beginner's tutorials and the like. A > public wiki, possibly with a couple volunteer editors to make sure > that nothing blatantly wrong stays up for long, pretty much exactly > fits the bill. I, for one, don't want to see the manual turn into > something like the php manual in that the manual should have nothing > but the facts without any chance of misinformation being included there. > > Erik Jones > +5 The manual should be a a reference document, that contains the dry facts of PostgreSQL, like what syntax is allowed, which functions exist etc. The Wiki should focus on how to use PgSQL in the real world. I'm a regular on a dutch website called PHPFreakz and we use our wiki as a real-world-reference document. People ask questions on a forum and the most interesting, recurring or just plain interesting ones are enterd into the wiki, very much like Varlena's tidbits. Moderators keep an eye on what comes in and organize the information into categories. That kind of information is pure gold. We add a few read-along adventures every now and then and that works extremely well to educate people. PgSQL could use a wiki to gather information, and when a document seems complete, it could be checked by moderators and copied to the official website.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:07:37 -0500 (EST) Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> wrote: > Can anyone think of another place a community docs wiki could go at? > I don't have any good web hosting facilities here right now. I just > took a look at buying a cheap host somewhere, but I feel it would be > inappropriate to host a PostgreSQL documentation wiki on a shared > host where the underlying database was *censored*. > CMD will host anything you need. Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit
Attachment
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:07:37 -0500 (EST) > Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> wrote: > > >> Can anyone think of another place a community docs wiki could go at? >> I don't have any good web hosting facilities here right now. I just >> took a look at buying a cheap host somewhere, but I feel it would be >> inappropriate to host a PostgreSQL documentation wiki on a shared >> host where the underlying database was *censored*. >> >> > > CMD will host anything you need. > > Joshua D. Drake > > So who wants to volunteer taking the lead and setting up a wiki on CMD hosting? All we need is one person to get this going, and then the community can have at it -- Tom Hart IT Specialist Cooperative Federal 723 Westcott St. Syracuse, NY 13210 (315) 471-1116 ext. 202 (315) 476-0567 (fax)
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:16:50 -0500 (EST) Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> wrote: > I think the market for a PostgreSQL book is limited by a few things: > > 1) There just aren't that many potential buyers (yet!) As someone who *still* gets royalty checks for his 6 year old book, I disagree. > 2) The included documentation is too good I could buy into this one to a degree. > 3) There's way too much community-generated material like the mailing > lists available Yep. > 4) Multiple earlier free books are already floating around > Bingo! The reality is for the majority of intro topics even the 6 year old book is more than relevant. Where Practical falls down is talking about things like background writer or vacuum. Those particular topics are covered ad-naseum in the docs. Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit
Attachment
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:07:37 -0500 (EST) > Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> wrote: > >> Can anyone think of another place a community docs wiki could go at? > > CMD will host anything you need. Basically all it would take to get this off the ground is a host running PHP 5.0+ and PostgreSQL 8.1+ (with tsearch2) that the current Mediawiki distribution could be installed into; PHP 5.1 and PG 8.2 would be preferred. The main install instructions are at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Installing_MediaWiki and I know they're good because I fixed the parts that weren't when I last installed one of these. The main open question for initial post-install configuration is how to deal with edit privledges. I think this one would be OK with letting anyone sign up for an account in an automated way, rather than requiring a human approval like the Developer's wiki does, but only allow registered accounts to edit. That will give some defense against the spammers while not making life difficult for the person who just wants to submit something at random one day. I could help out with the initial setup, you could just have somebody internally do the install and let me have an account when it's ready, whatever makes sense for you. I have two articles I can submit as examples of a good format for people to use to push some initial content in there, I may turn those into a template or something. Let me know what I can do to help get this going. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:50:41 -0500 (EST) Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> wrote: > I could help out with the initial setup, you could just have somebody > internally do the install and let me have an account when it's ready, > whatever makes sense for you. I have two articles I can submit as > examples of a good format for people to use to push some initial > content in there, I may turn those into a template or something. Let > me know what I can do to help get this going. I just got back from scale, let me talk to the guys and see which machine this needs to go on and I will get back with you. Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHsOH2ATb/zqfZUUQRAq2YAKCGObN2kEDM+k+JhtdlHUK2Wlpb2QCfWlzH CfYgYQQlxGM7HOt4kFtrgMc= =5+Uc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Feb 11, 2008, at 5:50 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:07:37 -0500 (EST) >> Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> wrote: >> >>> Can anyone think of another place a community docs wiki could go at? >> >> CMD will host anything you need. > > Basically all it would take to get this off the ground is a host > running PHP 5.0+ and PostgreSQL 8.1+ (with tsearch2) that the > current Mediawiki distribution could be installed into; PHP 5.1 and > PG 8.2 would be preferred. The main install instructions are at > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Installing_MediaWiki and I > know they're good because I fixed the parts that weren't when I > last installed one of these. > > The main open question for initial post-install configuration is > how to deal with edit privledges. I think this one would be OK > with letting anyone sign up for an account in an automated way, > rather than requiring a human approval like the Developer's wiki > does, but only allow registered accounts to edit. That will give > some defense against the spammers while not making life difficult > for the person who just wants to submit something at random one day. Also, a few volunteers to receive notifications of edits for some basic QA just to make sure that what's added is correct. Erik Jones DBA | Emma® erik@myemma.com 800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888 615.292.0777 (fax) Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style. Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:50:41 -0500 (EST) > Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> wrote: > > >> I could help out with the initial setup, you could just have somebody >> internally do the install and let me have an account when it's ready, >> whatever makes sense for you. I have two articles I can submit as >> examples of a good format for people to use to push some initial >> content in there, I may turn those into a template or something. Let >> me know what I can do to help get this going. >> > > I just got back from scale, let me talk to the guys and see which > machine this needs to go on and I will get back with you. > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > - -- > The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ > PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ > Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit > > > Are we still waiting on this, or did the discussion move off list? -- Tom Hart IT Specialist Cooperative Federal 723 Westcott St. Syracuse, NY 13210 (315) 471-1116 ext. 202 (315) 476-0567 (fax)
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Tom Hart wrote: > Are we still waiting on this, or did the discussion move off list? Waiting--all involved are distracted doing the organization work for the East conference this week. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
On Monday 04 February 2008 10:48, vincent wrote:
> > Christopher Browne wrote:
> >
> > Personally I'm surprised that the last couple responses seem to center
> > around not being able to make much money off of it. I agree that it
> > would require some time investment, but so did building PG in the first
> > place. Countless people have already sacrificed hours upon hours of
> > their time with no return on their investment except pride in their work
> > and a better overall product for everybody to use. I'm not a talented
> > enough programmer to contribute to the code, but in this way I can do
> > something to give back to the pg community.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Hart
>
> +1
>
> It seems there's a stalemate, apparently PgSQL needs to be more popular
> before authors want to write for it, and the public doesn't want to commit
> to a database that has only a handfull of books available.
>
Just to clarify, the market needs to expand to get publishers on board, not
authors.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL