Thread: Re: Democracy and organisation : let's make a revolution in the Debian way
Jean-Michel, > It seems clear that several teams are working without central point management > and contact: <snip> > - Marketing: MySQL sucks and has a team of marketing sending junk technical > emails and writing false benchmarks. Who is in charge of marketing at > PostgreSQL? Where can I find a list of PostgreSQL features? <snip> ome projects, like Debian, have a democratic organisation. The team leader is > elected for a year. Why not settle a similar organization? This would help > take decisions ... and not loose time on important issues. > > PostgreSQL is a software but it is also a community. If we believe in > democracy, I suggest we should organize in a democratic way and elect a > leader for a year. Let me introduce myself. In addition to being a contributor of supplimentary documentation and the occasional spec to the PostgreSQL project, I am volunteer marketing lead and the primary motivator for governance overhaul in the OpenOffice.org project. And frankly, I think you're way off base here. We have leaders: Tom, Bruce, Jan, Stephan, Thomas, Marc and Oliver (did I miss anybody?). Frankly, if OpenOffice.org had the kind of widely trusted, committed, involved in the community core developers that PostgreSQL already has, I wouldn't be on my fourth draft of an OpenOffice.org Community Council charter. OpenOffice.org will have an election process because we are too big and too dispersed for a simple trust network, not because we want one for its own sake. PostgreSQL is, quite possibly, the smoothest-running Open Source project with worldwide adoption. I find myself saying, at least once a week, "if only project X were as well-organized as PostgreSQL!" It is perhaps not coincidental that Postgres is one of the 15 or 20 oldest Open Source projects (older than Linux, I believe). How would a "democratic election" improve this? And why would we want an elected person or body who was not a core developer? And if we elected a core developer, why bother? They aready run things. Regarding your marketing angle: Feel free to nominate yourself "PostgreSQL Marketing Czar." Write articles. Contact journalists. Generate press releases for each new Postgres version. Apply for a dot-org booth at LinuxWorld. Nobody voted for me (actually, I got stuck with the job by not protesting hard enough <grin>). Frankly, my feeling is, as a "geek-to-geek" product, PostgreSQL is already adequately marketed through our huge network of DBA users and code contributors. As often as not, the database engine choice is made by the DBA, and they will choose PostgreSQL on its merits, not because of some Washington Post article. OpenOffice.org is a different story, as an end-user application. So we have a Marketing Project. -- -Josh Berkus Porject Lead, OpenOffice.org Marketing
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Frankly, my feeling is, as a "geek-to-geek" product, PostgreSQL is already
> adequately marketed through our huge network of DBA users and code
> contributors.
Well, mumble ... it seems to me that we are definitely suffering from
a "buzz gap" (cf missile gap, Dr Strangelove, etc) compared to MySQL.
That doesn't bother me in itself, but the long-term implications are
scary. If MySQL manages to attract a larger development community as
a consequence of more usage or better marketing, then eventually they
will be ahead of us on features and every other measure that counts.
Once we're number two with no prayer of catching up, how long will our
project remain viable? So, no matter how silly you might think
"MySQL is better" is today, you've got to consider the prospect that
it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So far I have not worried about that scenario too much, because Monty
has always treated the MySQL sources as his personal preserve; if he
hadn't written it or closely reviewed it, it didn't get in, and if it
didn't hew closely to his opinion of what's important, it didn't get in.
But I get the impression that he's loosened up of late. If MySQL stops
being limited by what one guy can do or review, their rate of progress
could improve dramatically.
In short: we could use an organized marketing effort. I really
feel the lack of Great Bridge these days; there isn't anyone with
comparable willingness to expend marketing talent and dollars on
promoting Postgres as such. Not sure what to do about it. We've
sort of dismissed Jean-Michel's comments (and those of others in
the past) with "sure, step right up and do the marketing" responses.
But the truth of the matter is that a few amateurs with no budget
won't make much of an impression. We really need some professionals
with actual dollars to spend, and I don't know where to find 'em.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > > Frankly, my feeling is, as a "geek-to-geek" product, PostgreSQL is already > > adequately marketed through our huge network of DBA users and code > > contributors. > > Well, mumble ... it seems to me that we are definitely suffering from > a "buzz gap" (cf missile gap, Dr Strangelove, etc) compared to MySQL. > That doesn't bother me in itself, but the long-term implications are > scary. If MySQL manages to attract a larger development community as > a consequence of more usage or better marketing, then eventually they > will be ahead of us on features and every other measure that counts. > Once we're number two with no prayer of catching up, how long will our > project remain viable? So, no matter how silly you might think > "MySQL is better" is today, you've got to consider the prospect that > it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Actually, I'm not sure how "viable" MySQL *is* in a commercial environment ... personally, I think that they just shot themselves in the foot with their recent 'law suit' with NuSphere, no? Other then MySQL AB themselves, how many are going to jump onto that bandwagon if nobody is allowed *some* sort of competitive advantage? > So far I have not worried about that scenario too much, because Monty > has always treated the MySQL sources as his personal preserve; if he > hadn't written it or closely reviewed it, it didn't get in, and if it > didn't hew closely to his opinion of what's important, it didn't get in. > But I get the impression that he's loosened up of late. If MySQL stops > being limited by what one guy can do or review, their rate of progress > could improve dramatically. I don't know ... again, my view of Monty is extended to "if it doesn't get submitted for review, whether it gets in or not, we'll sue you for breach of license" ... really gives those considering jumping onto MySQL a warm, fuzzy feeling, no? :(
On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 07:21, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > > Frankly, my feeling is, as a "geek-to-geek" product, PostgreSQL is already > > adequately marketed through our huge network of DBA users and code > > contributors. > > Well, mumble ... it seems to me that we are definitely suffering from > a "buzz gap" (cf missile gap, Dr Strangelove, etc) compared to MySQL. > That doesn't bother me in itself, but the long-term implications are > scary. If MySQL manages to attract a larger development community as > a consequence of more usage or better marketing, then eventually they > will be ahead of us on features and every other measure that counts. > Once we're number two with no prayer of catching up, how long will our > project remain viable? So, no matter how silly you might think > "MySQL is better" is today, you've got to consider the prospect that > it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. #pragma no-flames-please When/if MySQL becomes better than PostgreSQL, we'd simply have a still better open-source/free software database than we have now. In what way exactly is this bad ? Perhaps (hypothetically speaking) the "hot breath" of MySQL becoming hotter and hotter will also induce more ideas and performance/enterprise optimisations for postgres ... If MySQL were better than PostgreSQL, you could really do two things : (1) divert your development effort to MySQL, injecting it with the good stuff known from the postgres effort (2) make sure postgres becomes even better ! or (3) turn away from computers and programming in disgust (not recommended) Of course, as things stand now, MySQL has still a long way to run before it's up to par with PostgreSQL on enterprise-level database features. But *both* are not yet at 100% ! I do agree we need more publicity for PostgreSQL, I mention it every time I explain a database backend system to our prospects. I really am a great fan of postgres and use it exclusively (except to look how poorly other db's compare with it :-). [snip] > But I get the impression that he's loosened up of late. If MySQL stops > being limited by what one guy can do or review, their rate of progress > could improve dramatically. which in itself is not bad at all. Look at it this way and perhaps the situation doesn't appear too negative: A guesstimate of 90% of all open-source/free software systems and development is GNU/Linux. Nonetheless, the remaining 10% is *very* active and are in some ways even ahead of the Linux track. In other ways they are different. In still other ways, they're behind Linux. For specific tasks, the *BSD family is vastly superior to Linux. Everyone should use and support the tools that fit the bill. For the marketing stuff, what about asking some big company's IT dept for a statement, sort of "FooBarBank chooses/switches to PostgreSQL open source database"? Then it's just a matter of making a press release (wording is very important, anyone proficient in making press releases here ?) and time them adequately. I'll ask around here to see whether we can publicize some cases. Cheers, Tycho /* this mail protected by No-Flam(tm) fire retardant asbestos underwear (owwww itchy itchy) */ -- Tycho Fruru tycho@fruru.com "Prediction is extremely difficult. Especially about the future." - Niels Bohr
IMO One of the big reasons that MySQL is viewed as being better is it's percieved simplicity. It has a large following because of this, and many of them are not experienced database users, in fact just the opposite. This large user base is perhaps the best marketing that an open source project can hope for. So I think that if we want to attract more users we should try to make postgres easier to use. The hard part is how to do this without sacrificing the integrity of the project. I think for starters when evaluating the next feature we want to work on we ask the following questions: 1) Does it make it easier to use for a non-dba ? 2) Does it facilitate making web-applications easier ( assuming that this is the largest user base ) ? 3) I'm sure there are others, but at the moment I can't come up with them. Then if faced with a choice of implementing something which is going to make postgres more technically complete or something which is going to appeal to more users we lean towards more users. Note I said lean! Dave On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 01:21, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > > Frankly, my feeling is, as a "geek-to-geek" product, PostgreSQL is already > > adequately marketed through our huge network of DBA users and code > > contributors. > > Well, mumble ... it seems to me that we are definitely suffering from > a "buzz gap" (cf missile gap, Dr Strangelove, etc) compared to MySQL. > That doesn't bother me in itself, but the long-term implications are > scary. If MySQL manages to attract a larger development community as > a consequence of more usage or better marketing, then eventually they > will be ahead of us on features and every other measure that counts. > Once we're number two with no prayer of catching up, how long will our > project remain viable? So, no matter how silly you might think > "MySQL is better" is today, you've got to consider the prospect that > it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. > > So far I have not worried about that scenario too much, because Monty > has always treated the MySQL sources as his personal preserve; if he > hadn't written it or closely reviewed it, it didn't get in, and if it > didn't hew closely to his opinion of what's important, it didn't get in. > But I get the impression that he's loosened up of late. If MySQL stops > being limited by what one guy can do or review, their rate of progress > could improve dramatically. > > In short: we could use an organized marketing effort. I really > feel the lack of Great Bridge these days; there isn't anyone with > comparable willingness to expend marketing talent and dollars on > promoting Postgres as such. Not sure what to do about it. We've > sort of dismissed Jean-Michel's comments (and those of others in > the past) with "sure, step right up and do the marketing" responses. > But the truth of the matter is that a few amateurs with no budget > won't make much of an impression. We really need some professionals > with actual dollars to spend, and I don't know where to find 'em. > > regards, tom lane > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > > >
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 04:25:24PM +0200, Tycho Fruru wrote: > Everyone should use and support the tools that fit the bill. I've mentioned before, however, that "the tools that fit the bill" is partly a function of network effects. The *BSD guys have the same problem when facing the Linux juggernaut: as one system begins to dominate the minds of certain types of people who happen to make a lot of decisions, that system knocks other things out of the running just by virtue of its PH quotient [1]. > For the marketing stuff, what about asking some big company's IT dept > for a statement, sort of "FooBarBank chooses/switches to PostgreSQL open > source database"? Then it's just a matter of making a press release > (wording is very important, anyone proficient in making press releases > here ?) and time them adequately. Best of luck. Here's the dirty secret about PostgreSQL: _lots_ of big-ish companies are using it, and using it in important, central functions of their organisations. But they're not willing to admit it. What you always get is something like, "Yes, we're using an enterprise-class system with good ANSI SQL 99 compliance, WAL, hot backup, triggers, rules, an advanced, extensible datatypes system, and excellent scalability to high concurrency. The system we're using, **mumble PostmmuumblehandinfrontofmouthgrSQmllL **mumble**, is very similar to ORACLE in a lot of respects. We have looked carefully at ORACLE, and are always aware of the constantly-changing database marketplace. We have a history of strong relationships with vendors. . . ." You can substitute your favourite big-name RDBMS. The point of such utterances seems mostly to be to get the name brand inserted as often as possible, as though some sort of reflected glory is the answer. I don't know why this is. I am, to put it mildly, unbelievably frustrated (not to say embarrassed) by at least one instance of it. But it's nevertheless true. [1] Pointy-hair quotient: the tendency of a given product name to elicit recognition from a technical manager of dubious technical ability. A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3 +1 416 646 3304 x110
Tom, > project remain viable? So, no matter how silly you might think > "MySQL is better" is today, you've got to consider the prospect that > it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We also don't have a couple of other things that MySQL has: A viciously divided community, a bobby-trapped licensing situation, and a flagrant disredard for the SQL standard and cumulative wisdom of 25 years of database knowledge. (Nested tables! Sheesh!) These things handicap the MySQL project quite effectively, and are not likely to be straightened out in the next year. BTW, PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE the above. It's ok for the hacker's list, but I do not want to fuel the MySQL/Postgres "debate" anywhere more public. This "debate" does not benefit either project. Also, I am concerned about the focus on MySQL as our "only competitor".Frankly, I have never regarded MySQL as our primarycompetitor; that spot is reserved for Microsoft SQL Server. Especially with the death of SQL Anywhere, Postgres and MS SQL are the two major databases in the transaction/vertical application space for the budget-minded business (although MS SQL is considerably less budget-minded than it was a year ago). When we've crushed MS SQL, then it's time to take on Oracle and DB2. I think there's plenty of room in the RDBMS market for both MySQL and PostgreSQL. If there's a marketing need, it's to educate DBA's on the different strengths of the two databases. You think MySQL would cooperate in this, or do they see themselves as competing head-on with us? > In short: we could use an organized marketing effort. I really > feel the lack of Great Bridge these days; there isn't anyone with > comparable willingness to expend marketing talent and dollars on > promoting Postgres as such. Not sure what to do about it. We've > sort of dismissed Jean-Michel's comments (and those of others in > the past) with "sure, step right up and do the marketing" responses. > But the truth of the matter is that a few amateurs with no budget > won't make much of an impression. We really need some professionals > with actual dollars to spend, and I don't know where to find 'em. I disagree pretty strongly, Tom. OpenOffice.org Marketing has no cash, and is an all-volunteer effort. To quote journalist Amy Wohl "[OpenOffice.org] have managed to put together a better buunch of volunteer marketers than Sun is able to hire." Frankly, of the various marketing techniques, only going to trade shows costs money; the rest is all labor which can be done by volunteers and donors. Of course, this requires somebody pretty inspired to organize it. I already have my hands full with OpenOffice.org. Volunteers? As Great Bridge should have taught you, corporate money for mmarketing comes with expectations and deadlines attached. Landmark gave you one shot at "making it", and then yanked the carpet when that didn't pan out immediately. Other companies are going to be the same. One of the greatest things about Postgres is that we have been able to outlast the death of half a dozen companies that supported us, and replace them with new. And isn't Red Hat doing anything to promote us? Finally, thanks to you guys, we are still advancing our project faster than most commercial software. How many RDBMSs out there have DOMAIN support? How many have advanced data types that really work? How many support 5 procedural languages and subselects just abotu everywhere? -Josh Berkus
I don't normally post to this list, but have a crazy suggestion that is a little farfetched. Suggestion: Fix the portability problems so that there is a Windows native version of PostgreSQL. Then offer the Open Office organization PostgreSQL as the project's database. This would increase the user base my leaps and bounds. The problem is that using and administrating PostgreSQL can be complex. Also, some people may automatically assume that PostgreSQL is a low end database not capable of doing more than being used as a backend for a free office app. Of course we all know better. Maybe a PostgreSQL-Lite would be a better idea. One that condenses the main code down to something easy, that a desktop user could use, but maintain the strength of the core code. I suppose that means creating another project. Here are just a few links that I've come across recently: How-to for using Open Office and unixODBC http://www.unixodbc.org/doc/OOoMySQL.pdf Others are considering MySQL. http://dba.openoffice.org/proposals/MySQL_OOo.html James Hubbard Dave Cramer wrote: > IMO One of the big reasons that MySQL is viewed as being better is it's > percieved simplicity. It has a large following because of this, and many > of them are not experienced database users, in fact just the opposite. > > This large user base is perhaps the best marketing that an open source > project can hope for. So I think that if we want to attract more users > we should try to make postgres easier to use. The hard part is how to do > this without sacrificing the integrity of the project. I think for > starters when evaluating the next feature we want to work on we ask the > following questions: > > 1) Does it make it easier to use for a non-dba ? > 2) Does it facilitate making web-applications easier ( assuming that > this is the largest user base ) ? > 3) I'm sure there are others, but at the moment I can't come up with > them. > > Then if faced with a choice of implementing something which is going to > make postgres more technically complete or something which is going to > appeal to more users we lean towards more users. Note I said lean! > > > Dave > > On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 01:21, Tom Lane wrote: > >>Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: >> >>>Frankly, my feeling is, as a "geek-to-geek" product, PostgreSQL is already >>>adequately marketed through our huge network of DBA users and code >>>contributors. >> >>Well, mumble ... it seems to me that we are definitely suffering from >>a "buzz gap" (cf missile gap, Dr Strangelove, etc) compared to MySQL. >>That doesn't bother me in itself, but the long-term implications are >>scary. If MySQL manages to attract a larger development community as >>a consequence of more usage or better marketing, then eventually they >>will be ahead of us on features and every other measure that counts. >>Once we're number two with no prayer of catching up, how long will our >>project remain viable? So, no matter how silly you might think >>"MySQL is better" is today, you've got to consider the prospect that >>it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. >> >>So far I have not worried about that scenario too much, because Monty >>has always treated the MySQL sources as his personal preserve; if he >>hadn't written it or closely reviewed it, it didn't get in, and if it >>didn't hew closely to his opinion of what's important, it didn't get in. >>But I get the impression that he's loosened up of late. If MySQL stops >>being limited by what one guy can do or review, their rate of progress >>could improve dramatically. >> >>In short: we could use an organized marketing effort. I really >>feel the lack of Great Bridge these days; there isn't anyone with >>comparable willingness to expend marketing talent and dollars on >>promoting Postgres as such. Not sure what to do about it. We've >>sort of dismissed Jean-Michel's comments (and those of others in >>the past) with "sure, step right up and do the marketing" responses. >>But the truth of the matter is that a few amateurs with no budget >>won't make much of an impression. We really need some professionals >>with actual dollars to spend, and I don't know where to find 'em. >> >> regards, tom lane >> >> >> >>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command >> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) >> >> >> > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > >
James Hubbard wrote: > I don't normally post to this list, but have a crazy suggestion that is a > little farfetched. > > Suggestion: > Fix the portability problems so that there is a Windows native version of > PostgreSQL. Then offer the Open Office organization PostgreSQL as the > project's database. This would increase the user base my leaps and bounds. OK, we just started heavy discussion on this and I believe a few people are actively working on this. The timeframe is 3-6 months, though we have the Cygwin solution right now. > The problem is that using and administrating PostgreSQL can be complex. Also, > some people may automatically assume that PostgreSQL is a low end database not > capable of doing more than being used as a backend for a free office app. Of > course we all know better. OK, I have heard this before, but I would like to know specifically how is PostgreSQL harder to administer than MySQL. Knowing that will help us address the issue. > Maybe a PostgreSQL-Lite would be a better idea. One that condenses the main > code down to something easy, that a desktop user could use, but maintain the > strength of the core code. I suppose that means creating another project. Perhaps a config utility that asked you questions and modified template1 and the config files. How about that? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > > Frankly, my feeling is, as a "geek-to-geek" product, PostgreSQL is already > > adequately marketed through our huge network of DBA users and code > > contributors. > > Well, mumble ... it seems to me that we are definitely suffering from > a "buzz gap" (cf missile gap, Dr Strangelove, etc) compared to MySQL. > That doesn't bother me in itself, but the long-term implications are > scary. If MySQL manages to attract a larger development community as > a consequence of more usage or better marketing, then eventually they > will be ahead of us on features and every other measure that counts. > Once we're number two with no prayer of catching up, how long will our > project remain viable? So, no matter how silly you might think > "MySQL is better" is today, you've got to consider the prospect that > it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. OK, I want to know, does anyone see MySQL gaining in market share in comparison to PostgreSQL, or is MySQL gaining against other databases? Is MySQL gaining sites faster than we are gaining sites? Every indication I can see is that PostgreSQL is gaining on MySQL. The Linux/FreeBSD comparison is potent. Does PostgreSQL remain a niche player? Does *BSD remain a niche player? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Josh Berkus wrote: > Also, I am concerned about the focus on MySQL as our "only competitor". > Frankly, I have never regarded MySQL as our primary competitor; that > spot is reserved for Microsoft SQL Server. Especially with the death > of SQL Anywhere, Postgres and MS SQL are the two major databases in the > transaction/vertical application space for the budget-minded business > (although MS SQL is considerably less budget-minded than it was a year > ago). > > When we've crushed MS SQL, then it's time to take on Oracle and DB2. I think Oracle is our main competitor. We seem to get more people porting from Oracle than any other database, and our feature set matches there's most closely. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > > Frankly, my feeling is, as a "geek-to-geek" product, PostgreSQL is already > > adequately marketed through our huge network of DBA users and code > > contributors. > > Well, mumble ... it seems to me that we are definitely suffering from > a "buzz gap" (cf missile gap, Dr Strangelove, etc) compared to MySQL. > That doesn't bother me in itself, but the long-term implications are > scary. If MySQL manages to attract a larger development community as > a consequence of more usage or better marketing, then eventually they > will be ahead of us on features and every other measure that counts. > Once we're number two with no prayer of catching up, how long will our > project remain viable? So, no matter how silly you might think > "MySQL is better" is today, you've got to consider the prospect that > it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. > > So far I have not worried about that scenario too much, because Monty > has always treated the MySQL sources as his personal preserve; if he > hadn't written it or closely reviewed it, it didn't get in, and if it > didn't hew closely to his opinion of what's important, it didn't get in. > But I get the impression that he's loosened up of late. If MySQL stops > being limited by what one guy can do or review, their rate of progress > could improve dramatically. > > In short: we could use an organized marketing effort. I really > feel the lack of Great Bridge these days; there isn't anyone with > comparable willingness to expend marketing talent and dollars on > promoting Postgres as such. Not sure what to do about it. We've > sort of dismissed Jean-Michel's comments (and those of others in > the past) with "sure, step right up and do the marketing" responses. > But the truth of the matter is that a few amateurs with no budget > won't make much of an impression. We really need some professionals > with actual dollars to spend, and I don't know where to find 'em. OK, let me make some comments on this. First, Great Bridge had me doing some marketing stuff while I was with them. This included trade shows, magazine articles, and interviews. I am available to do all those again. GB lined up the contacts and got it all started. If people want me to do more of that, I can find the time. I am not sure how effective that was. There was a lot more marketing done by Great Bridge that would take lots of money to do. Do people want an advocacy article written, like "How to choose a database?" I could do that. Basically, I am open to ideas. Would it help to fly me out to meet IT leaders? More books/articles? What does it take? What do successful companies and open source projects do that works? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
> OK, I have heard this before, but I would like to know specifically how > is PostgreSQL harder to administer than MySQL. Knowing that will help > us address the issue. I find this statement about pgsql being hard to admin a bit hard to swallow as well. Maybe it's cause pgsql is all i've _really_ used, and did tech support for it for a while. I've had a few run in's with mysql[ for personal projects] and tried toapproach it with an open mind, but often i find thedocumentation is unclear and hard to follow. PostgreSQL has GREAT documentation and it feels very straight forward to run. The only problem is convincing everyone else that. > > > > Maybe a PostgreSQL-Lite would be a better idea. One that > condenses the main > > code down to something easy, that a desktop user could use, but > maintain the > > strength of the core code. I suppose that means creating > another project. > > Perhaps a config utility that asked you questions and modified template1 > and the config files. How about that? > > -- > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 > + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue > + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > > >
Bruce Momjian wrote: > James Hubbard wrote: > >>I don't normally post to this list, but have a crazy suggestion that is a >>little farfetched. >> >>Suggestion: >>Fix the portability problems so that there is a Windows native version of >>PostgreSQL. Then offer the Open Office organization PostgreSQL as the >>project's database. This would increase the user base my leaps and bounds. > > > OK, we just started heavy discussion on this and I believe a few people > are actively working on this. The timeframe is 3-6 months, though we > have the Cygwin solution right now. I've been watching the activity around this. I have a great deal of hope that this will produce something. My wife needed a database and web scripting solution for use on Windows at work and my only suggestion was to use mysql and php. The binaries are on the website and are easy to download and install. > >>The problem is that using and administrating PostgreSQL can be complex. Also, >>some people may automatically assume that PostgreSQL is a low end database not >>capable of doing more than being used as a backend for a free office app. Of >>course we all know better. > > > OK, I have heard this before, but I would like to know specifically how > is PostgreSQL harder to administer than MySQL. Knowing that will help > us address the issue. > I wasn't really comparing to MySQL here. I meant, in relationship to MS Access. Start it up and it just works. No worries about configuration files, etc. I've not used MySQL before except to install it on Windows NT in a VMWare session. I've been meaning to get back around to playing with to see how well it functions. The company that my wife works for is almost exclusively MS. There are a few file servers that are Novell. I'm sure that the only reason that they are using MySQL is that it's easy to obtain install and use and use with PHP. > >>Maybe a PostgreSQL-Lite would be a better idea. One that condenses the main >>code down to something easy, that a desktop user could use, but maintain the >>strength of the core code. I suppose that means creating another project. > > > Perhaps a config utility that asked you questions and modified template1 > and the config files. How about that? > I think that would work pretty well. A basic configuration that locks eveything down with the goal of a single user desktop setting, but also provides the user with the capability of opening things up so that it could function as a multiuser system. That then forces the issue of being able to move the database to a server machine relatively painlessly. Keep in mind that I was primarily focusing on the potential to include it with something like OpenOffice. This is why I said that my post was a little far fetched. James Hubbard
I'd have to say that personally, given a choice between expending effort to fix current know bugs and add known needed features, and expending effort to port to Windows, I'd pick the former, not the latter. I could personally care less if postgresql ever runs as a native window application, since I personally don't believe windows is a suitable OS for hosting a dbms. Note that the "portablility problems" in postgresql are and were introduced by Windows deciding to do everything different than every other OS. Postgresql is quite portable, when one is porting it to OSes that aren't windows, like VMS, MVS, or all the different flavors of Unix. Besides, in another 5 years, Windows as a server OS will likely be the shrinking percentage, while Linux/BSD et. al. will be growing. focus on the future, and let Windows wither and die (in the server room) as it should. On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, James Hubbard wrote: > I don't normally post to this list, but have a crazy suggestion that is a > little farfetched. > > Suggestion: > Fix the portability problems so that there is a Windows native version of > PostgreSQL. Then offer the Open Office organization PostgreSQL as the > project's database. This would increase the user base my leaps and bounds. > > The problem is that using and administrating PostgreSQL can be complex. Also, > some people may automatically assume that PostgreSQL is a low end database not > capable of doing more than being used as a backend for a free office app. Of > course we all know better. > > Maybe a PostgreSQL-Lite would be a better idea. One that condenses the main > code down to something easy, that a desktop user could use, but maintain the > strength of the core code. I suppose that means creating another project. > > Here are just a few links that I've come across recently: > How-to for using Open Office and unixODBC > http://www.unixodbc.org/doc/OOoMySQL.pdf > > Others are considering MySQL. > http://dba.openoffice.org/proposals/MySQL_OOo.html > > James Hubbard > > Dave Cramer wrote: > > IMO One of the big reasons that MySQL is viewed as being better is it's > > percieved simplicity. It has a large following because of this, and many > > of them are not experienced database users, in fact just the opposite. > > > > This large user base is perhaps the best marketing that an open source > > project can hope for. So I think that if we want to attract more users > > we should try to make postgres easier to use. The hard part is how to do > > this without sacrificing the integrity of the project. I think for > > starters when evaluating the next feature we want to work on we ask the > > following questions: > > > > 1) Does it make it easier to use for a non-dba ? > > 2) Does it facilitate making web-applications easier ( assuming that > > this is the largest user base ) ? > > 3) I'm sure there are others, but at the moment I can't come up with > > them. > > > > Then if faced with a choice of implementing something which is going to > > make postgres more technically complete or something which is going to > > appeal to more users we lean towards more users. Note I said lean! > > > > > > Dave > > > > On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 01:21, Tom Lane wrote: > > > >>Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > >> > >>>Frankly, my feeling is, as a "geek-to-geek" product, PostgreSQL is already > >>>adequately marketed through our huge network of DBA users and code > >>>contributors. > >> > >>Well, mumble ... it seems to me that we are definitely suffering from > >>a "buzz gap" (cf missile gap, Dr Strangelove, etc) compared to MySQL. > >>That doesn't bother me in itself, but the long-term implications are > >>scary. If MySQL manages to attract a larger development community as > >>a consequence of more usage or better marketing, then eventually they > >>will be ahead of us on features and every other measure that counts. > >>Once we're number two with no prayer of catching up, how long will our > >>project remain viable? So, no matter how silly you might think > >>"MySQL is better" is today, you've got to consider the prospect that > >>it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. > >> > >>So far I have not worried about that scenario too much, because Monty > >>has always treated the MySQL sources as his personal preserve; if he > >>hadn't written it or closely reviewed it, it didn't get in, and if it > >>didn't hew closely to his opinion of what's important, it didn't get in. > >>But I get the impression that he's loosened up of late. If MySQL stops > >>being limited by what one guy can do or review, their rate of progress > >>could improve dramatically. > >> > >>In short: we could use an organized marketing effort. I really > >>feel the lack of Great Bridge these days; there isn't anyone with > >>comparable willingness to expend marketing talent and dollars on > >>promoting Postgres as such. Not sure what to do about it. We've > >>sort of dismissed Jean-Michel's comments (and those of others in > >>the past) with "sure, step right up and do the marketing" responses. > >>But the truth of the matter is that a few amateurs with no budget > >>won't make much of an impression. We really need some professionals > >>with actual dollars to spend, and I don't know where to find 'em. > >> > >> regards, tom lane > >> > >> > >> > >>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > >>TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > >> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(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 > > > -- "Force has no place where there is need of skill.", "Haste in every business brings failures.", "This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much knowledge but no power." -- Herodotus
> > When we've crushed MS SQL, then it's time to take on Oracle and DB2. > > I think Oracle is our main competitor. We seem to get more people > porting from Oracle than any other database, and our feature set matches > there's most closely. But if we had a native windows port, I think we would here of a lot more MS SQL Server converts. Also, I think that expending effort on a windows port will be a net win as it it will generate a new userbase and with it more developers. Good or bad, windows has a large marketshare.
James, > Maybe a PostgreSQL-Lite would be a better idea. One that condenses the main > code down to something easy, that a desktop user could use, but maintain the > strength of the core code. I suppose that means creating another project. Personally, I think it's a redundant idea. There are a couple dozen "lightweight" RDBMSs available off Sourceforge. There is only one "Heavy-duty" database: Us. > Others are considering MySQL. > http://dba.openoffice.org/proposals/MySQL_OOo.html Let me nip this in the bud: That proposal was shot down almost immediately, mostly due to MySQL's poor adherence to the SQL standard and licensing problems. I also shot down PostgreSQL as a possibility for inclusion with OpenOffice.org, since Postgres is quite firmly a *server* database, and 70% of OpenOffice.org installs are on Windows 95/98. Currently, we are leaning toward HSQLDB as our included database. However, you can help us decide: join the DBA.openoffice.org project (http://dba.openoffice.org/). Something we could really, really use for OpenOffice.org is "native" (SBDC) drivers for PostgreSQL. Currently, we have to use UnixODBC or MS ODBC, which brings all sorts of problems with it. Can anyone help with a driver? Once we get a native driver, OpenOffice.org will be available as an MS Access-style tool for simple PostgreSQL database management. This should increase adoption of Postgres somewhat. -Josh BerkusOpenOffice.org
Bruce, > I think Oracle is our main competitor. We seem to get more people > porting from Oracle than any other database, and our feature set matches > there's most closely. I disagree, and did as well when you were with Great Bridge. No matter how Postgres core functionality compares with Oracle, they have nearly a decade of building tools, accessories, and extra whiz-bang features for their product. Not to mention a serious reputation as the "ultimate database if you can afford it." As long as we target Oracle as our "competition", we will remain "the database to use if you can't afford Oracle, but to be replaced with Oracle as soon as you can." Heck, look at DB2, which is toe-to-toe with Oracle for feature set, but is only really sold to companies who use IBM's other tools. We're not in a position to challenge that reputation. On the other hand, we already outstrip MS SQL Server's feature set, as well as being more reliable, lower-maintainence, multi-platform, and cheaper. Frankly, the only thing that MS SQL has over us is easy-but-unreliable GUI admin tools (backup, user, and database management). Let's pick battles we can win. We'll beat Oracle eventually -- but not in the next few years. -Josh Berkus
Just a personal observation here, based on the work we've been doing lately ... there are *alot* of very large companies out there, one of which we just did onsite training for that I swear has an article in just about every trade magazine I read, each month ... the problem isn't getting companies to adopt/use PgSQL ... the problem is getting them to acknowledge its usage ... And, quite frankly, until the BigO loses its grip, I really don't see them coming out of the closet and admitting to using PgSQL ... why? I don't know abotu you, but all I can imagine in my head is a horde of O-salesman descending on the company wondering why they switched and how can they convince them otherwise, etc, etc ... I know ... I deal with those salesman all the time, from Oracle to Sun to Microsoft ... The problem, as I see it, is everyone moaning cause we aren't the #1 database for the Web ... who cares? How many sites out there don't even *need* a database backend in the first place? Someone throws MySQL onto that and thiks its the best thing since sliced bread, even though the table contains a single record ... The markets that matter, enterprise databases, we are making inroads into and quite substantial ones, but due to 'internal politics', you aren't going to hear about them ... How many ppl here can honestly say they know of *at least* one company, if not more, that are using PgSQL, but don't advertise, or let known, that fact? I can think of a half dozen that we (PgSQL, Inc) have worked with to convert, and train, so far ... Tom, call it RedHat DB or PgSQL, its the same code base ... any numbers from that end? Bruce, how about from SRA? On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > > > Frankly, my feeling is, as a "geek-to-geek" product, PostgreSQL is already > > > adequately marketed through our huge network of DBA users and code > > > contributors. > > > > Well, mumble ... it seems to me that we are definitely suffering from > > a "buzz gap" (cf missile gap, Dr Strangelove, etc) compared to MySQL. > > That doesn't bother me in itself, but the long-term implications are > > scary. If MySQL manages to attract a larger development community as > > a consequence of more usage or better marketing, then eventually they > > will be ahead of us on features and every other measure that counts. > > Once we're number two with no prayer of catching up, how long will our > > project remain viable? So, no matter how silly you might think > > "MySQL is better" is today, you've got to consider the prospect that > > it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. > > > > So far I have not worried about that scenario too much, because Monty > > has always treated the MySQL sources as his personal preserve; if he > > hadn't written it or closely reviewed it, it didn't get in, and if it > > didn't hew closely to his opinion of what's important, it didn't get in. > > But I get the impression that he's loosened up of late. If MySQL stops > > being limited by what one guy can do or review, their rate of progress > > could improve dramatically. > > > > In short: we could use an organized marketing effort. I really > > feel the lack of Great Bridge these days; there isn't anyone with > > comparable willingness to expend marketing talent and dollars on > > promoting Postgres as such. Not sure what to do about it. We've > > sort of dismissed Jean-Michel's comments (and those of others in > > the past) with "sure, step right up and do the marketing" responses. > > But the truth of the matter is that a few amateurs with no budget > > won't make much of an impression. We really need some professionals > > with actual dollars to spend, and I don't know where to find 'em. > > OK, let me make some comments on this. First, Great Bridge had me doing > some marketing stuff while I was with them. This included trade shows, > magazine articles, and interviews. I am available to do all those > again. GB lined up the contacts and got it all started. If people want > me to do more of that, I can find the time. > > I am not sure how effective that was. There was a lot more marketing > done by Great Bridge that would take lots of money to do. > > Do people want an advocacy article written, like "How to choose a > database?" I could do that. > > Basically, I am open to ideas. Would it help to fly me out to meet IT > leaders? More books/articles? What does it take? What do successful > companies and open source projects do that works? > > -- > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 > + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue > + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 > > > > ---------------------------(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 > > >
> Tom, > > > project remain viable? So, no matter how silly you might think > > "MySQL is better" is today, you've got to consider the prospect that > > it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. > > We also don't have a couple of other things that MySQL has: A > viciously divided community, a bobby-trapped licensing situation, and a > flagrant disredard for the SQL standard and cumulative wisdom of 25 > years of database knowledge. (Nested tables! Sheesh!) These things > handicap the MySQL project quite effectively, and are not likely to be > straightened out in the next year. > > BTW, PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE the above. It's ok for the hacker's list, > but I do not want to fuel the MySQL/Postgres "debate" anywhere more > public. This "debate" does not benefit either project. Oh, but it's _so_ tempting :-). > Also, I am concerned about the focus on MySQL as our "only competitor". > Frankly, I have never regarded MySQL as our primary competitor; that > spot is reserved for Microsoft SQL Server. Especially with the death > of SQL Anywhere, Postgres and MS SQL are the two major databases in the > transaction/vertical application space for the budget-minded business > (although MS SQL is considerably less budget-minded than it was a year > ago). > > When we've crushed MS SQL, then it's time to take on Oracle and DB2. Take on SQL Server, and establish a sizable useful niche. The notion that PostgreSQL is _necessarily_ supposed to be all things to all people promotes the danger of getting over-arrogant and over-ambitious. > I think there's plenty of room in the RDBMS market for both MySQL and > PostgreSQL. If there's a marketing need, it's to educate DBA's on the > different strengths of the two databases. You think MySQL would > cooperate in this, or do they see themselves as competing head-on with > us? Why _should_ they want to cooperate? Their advantage in the marketplace is largely based on the notion that "MySQL isn't quite as good as Oracle, but it's a lotcheaper!" For them to say, "and by the way, PostgreSQL, SAPDB, and Firebird are all basically the same that way" would be shooting themselves in the foot. Their model is rather like that of Microsoft Access: It's not all that great, but it gets used a lot, despite its limitations, because everyone has a copy of it as part of MS Office. For them to "cooperate" would mean compromising on what's most important to their ongoing marketing strategy: "Use MySQL because it's the most popular database!" > > In short: we could use an organized marketing effort. I really > > feel the lack of Great Bridge these days; there isn't anyone with > > comparable willingness to expend marketing talent and dollars on > > promoting Postgres as such. Not sure what to do about it. We've > > sort of dismissed Jean-Michel's comments (and those of others in > > the past) with "sure, step right up and do the marketing" responses. > > But the truth of the matter is that a few amateurs with no budget > > won't make much of an impression. We really need some professionals > > with actual dollars to spend, and I don't know where to find 'em. > > I disagree pretty strongly, Tom. OpenOffice.org Marketing has no > cash, and is an all-volunteer effort. To quote journalist Amy Wohl > "[OpenOffice.org] have managed to put together a better buunch of > volunteer marketers than Sun is able to hire." Frankly, of the various > marketing techniques, only going to trade shows costs money; the rest > is all labor which can be done by volunteers and donors. > > Of course, this requires somebody pretty inspired to organize it. I > already have my hands full with OpenOffice.org. Volunteers? The _crucial_ marketing that would need to take place is NOT to the public. It would be to: a) ISPs b) Vendors of ISP support software. The sort of thing that has allowed MySQL to get really popular is the fact that there are tools like cPanel <http://www.cpanel.net/> that provide a "friendly" front end to manage web site 'stuff,' including managing MySQL. > And isn't Red Hat doing anything to promote us? They ought to be... > Finally, thanks to you guys, we are still advancing our project faster > than most commercial software. How many RDBMSs out there have DOMAIN > support? How many have advanced data types that really work? How > many support 5 procedural languages and subselects just abotu > everywhere? ... And this is what is the plausible strategy for making PostgreSQL increasingly popular. _Improve it_ and people will come. MySQL won the "basic DBMS for web-hosting" battle, and there's no real way to overcome that _marketing_ advantage. MySQL got there the "fustest with the mostest," with things like cPanel allowing ISPs and web hosters to offer a free DBMS. PostgreSQL can offer "the same thing;" to evict MySQL, it will have to offer _really compelling_ advantages. Price _isn't_ a compelling advantage. PostgreSQL may be more powerful, but people are successfully using MySQL, so apparently it's _usable enough_ for a lot of purposes. The other thing that can make PostgreSQL an increasingly preferable option is for there to be an increasing set of _applications_ that prefer PostgreSQL. For instance, GnuCash has an SQL interface, or, to be more precise, a PostgreSQL interface. The makers of GnuCash found they preferred PostgreSQL's capabilities, and are uninterested in supporting a bunch of DBMSes. Somewhat similar, SQL-Ledger is compatible with PostgreSQL (and Oracle), but NOT MySQL. The thing that will make PostgreSQL the "killer app" that needs to be around is there being _applications_ that "prefer PostgreSQL." THAT is the best marketing. -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "ac.notelrac.teneerf@" "454aa")) http://cbbrowne.com/info/lsf.html Everyone has a photographic memory, some don't have film.
Marc, > Just a personal observation here, based on the work we've been doing > lately ... there are *alot* of very large companies out there, one of > which we just did onsite training for that I swear has an article in just > about every trade magazine I read, each month ... the problem isn't > getting companies to adopt/use PgSQL ... the problem is getting them to > acknowledge its usage ... Yeah. I know one database-backed application, used by about 40% of the pople in this city, which runs on PostgreSQL. However, the company that built that application won't let me publicize their usage because they are worried about getting political flack from Oracle and Microsoft's lobbyists at City Hall. -- -Josh Berkus
On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 22:48, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Bruce, > > > I think Oracle is our main competitor. We seem to get more people > > porting from Oracle than any other database, and our feature set matches > > there's most closely. > > I disagree, and did as well when you were with Great Bridge. No matter how > Postgres core functionality compares with Oracle, they have nearly a decade > of building tools, accessories, and extra whiz-bang features for their > product. My (perhaps a little outdated) experience has been that with Oracle almost anything on the client side sucks bad. What they have is a solid database and good upward path to really big iron. > Not to mention a serious reputation as the "ultimate database if > you can afford it." On PC server class computers we seem to be able to match them with one exception - prepared statements with good(?) binary fe/be protocol ? > As long as we target Oracle as our "competition", we will remain "the database > to use if you can't afford Oracle, but to be replaced with Oracle as soon as > you can." Heck, look at DB2, which is toe-to-toe with Oracle for feature > set, but is only really sold to companies who use IBM's other tools. We're > not in a position to challenge that reputation. But if we are seen as challenging it, it is a good marketing point when selling to MS SQL folks :) > On the other hand, we already outstrip MS SQL Server's feature set, as well as > being more reliable, lower-maintainence, multi-platform, and cheaper. If only someone were to write Transact SQL lookalike and even better - if we had pluggable frontend protocols - FreeTDS compatibility on server side would be a big step even without native Win32. > Frankly, the only thing that MS SQL has over us is easy-but-unreliable GUI > admin tools (backup, user, and database management). We almost have it in pgAdmin and Tora. --------------- Hannu
> OK, I have heard this before, but I would like to know specifically how > is PostgreSQL harder to administer than MySQL. Knowing that will help > us address the issue. A few things that get to me: Periodic vacuum and analyze. How often is enough? Whats cron? Automated garbage collection makes all of the Java people happy ;) ALTER TABLE / DROP COLUMN ALTER TABLE / ALTER COLUMN <datatype> ALTER TABLE / ADD COLUMN (as normal table creation) Both are useful while putting together a quick system. Especially if you project the ERD and PGAdmin processes onto a screen if working in a group for a quick application. Explain while creating. initdb is a seperate process. I've altered my Solaris startup scripts to automatically initdb the data directory requested if it doesn't already exist. Moving this into the postmaster itself, and automatically generating the space would cut about 50% of the effort out of the current install process. Install, run. Many installers probably do this already. Lastly, and hopefully partially fixed (soon?) is my main problem with -- Dropped that object but something else used it. Now it throws funny errors. Upgrades are a bit annoying, but if you've stuck with Postgresql long enough to get to an upgrade process I'd say you're hooked anyway.
> And, quite frankly, until the BigO loses its grip, I really don't see them > coming out of the closet and admitting to using PgSQL ... why? I don't > know abotu you, but all I can imagine in my head is a horde of O-salesman > descending on the company wondering why they switched and how can they > convince them otherwise, etc, etc ... > > I know ... I deal with those salesman all the time, from Oracle to Sun to > Microsoft ... Yeah, but the lunches are usually pretty good ;) Anyway, we've kept a trinket system around which covers nearly every big name required in order to allow marketing to push that we use the technology (PeopleSoft, Oracle, NT + Sun Clustering, etc.). Honestly, I'm not sure how essential to the system the CRM is. We'd notice if it was missing -- but we could live with a couple hours downtime without any issues. Fact is, even if we replaced the CRM with another solution an Oracle based NT box with some application would be running distributed.net in the corner in order to be able to say we use it when people ask. If they ask what for, it's always mission critical but very vague.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 02:34:59PM -0400, cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com wrote: > The _crucial_ marketing that would need to take place is NOT to the public. > It would be to: > a) ISPs > b) Vendors of ISP support software. > > The sort of thing that has allowed MySQL to get really popular is the fact > that there are tools like cPanel <http://www.cpanel.net/> that provide a > "friendly" front end to manage web site 'stuff,' including managing MySQL. One consideration is that prior to 7.3, PostgreSQL's permissions scheme made it difficult or impossible use in a shared-hosting environment (or at least, that's what I've heard from several different people -- I don't have any personal experience). I'm aware that there are people offering PostgreSQL hosting, but the *perception* among the hosting techies I've talked to is that MySQL's feature set is better suited for a shared hosting environment. With schemas and improved permissions in 7.3, that may be a thing of the past (at which point, ISPs might be a prime area for marketing). Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
Folks, > Both are useful while putting together a quick system. Especially if > you project the ERD and PGAdmin processes onto a screen if working in a > group for a quick application. Explain while creating. BTW, as nice as PG-Admin is, I do not consider it a solution to our DB management GUI desires. It only runs on Windows, and cannot be ported to *nix. :-( Weren't we ressurecting PGAccess? -- -Josh Berkus
Hi -*- Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee> [ 2002-06-25 21:34 ]: > On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 22:48, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Frankly, the only thing that MS SQL has over us is easy-but-unreliable GUI > > admin tools (backup, user, and database management). > > We almost have it in pgAdmin and Tora. Well, pgAdmin has come a long way -- some of my fellow admins that have Windows workstations use it, and does the developersat my company. Don't know Tora thought, must try it out sometime. However, I think some sort of scheduling like MS SQL offers would be very helpful for newcomers. Scheduling stuff like backup(now only dumps), vacuum's and such with cron is unfortunately not straight-forward enough. Merging configuration files is good. However, things like access control should IMO be configurable with SQL commands --which would also help in development of better administration tools. Just my two cents. Regards, Tolli, tolli@tol.li
Hi James, James Hubbard wrote: > <snip> > Keep in mind that I was primarily focusing on the potential to include it with > something like OpenOffice. This is why I said that my post was a little far > fetched. My understanding of this is that the OpenOffice.org guys don't want either PostgreSQL nor MySQL as their inbuilt database, but are instead looking at an altervative Open Source database (HSQL I think, don't remember for sure). Doing just what you proposed (getting a Win32 version of PostgreSQL and offering to the OpenOffice.org people) was suggested to NuSphere a few months ago, after Jan joined them. For some reason (not sure why) it wasn't something which they decided to pursue. Good suggestion though James. :-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift > James Hubbard > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Ok, a few comments on various messages that have appeared in this thread. > From: James Hubbard <jhubbard@mcs.uvawise.edu> > > I wasn't really comparing to MySQL here. I meant, in relationship > to MS Access. Start it up and it just works. Yeah, a point-and-drool installation wizard for postgres under windows would be great. I think, from looking at PGAdminII, that we've already got great admin tools; it seems just as good as SQL Server Enterprise Manager to me. > I think that would work pretty well. A basic configuration that > locks eveything down with the goal of a single user desktop setting, > but also provides the user with the capability of opening things up > so that it could function as a multiuser system. I don't understand this. What's the difference between a "single user desktop setting" and a low-end multi-user system? I don't see what would change. If you're talking more than a twenty or thirty active connections and a couple of gig of data, yeah, then you need to change stuff. But then you need a real admin and some planning, and no point-and-click tool is going to help with that. > Keep in mind that I was primarily focusing on the potential to include > it with something like OpenOffice. This is why I said that my post was > a little far fetched. That sounds like a great idea to me. > From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> > > I could personally care less if postgresql ever runs as a native window > application, since I personally don't believe windows is a suitable OS for > hosting a dbms. Well, windows is fine for hosting a DBMS if you're talking about the facilities the OS offers a DBMS, and effeciency. Administrating windows boxes sucks, but cygwin can help fix that. (Not that I'd care to go back to a database running under Windows, but it is practical, if unpleasant.) > Postgresql is quite portable, when one is porting it to OSes that > aren't windows, like VMS, MVS, or all the different flavors of Unix. I'm not sure what's up with this. Windows does offer POSIX compatability, after all. > From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> > > > Maybe a PostgreSQL-Lite would be a better idea. One that condenses the main > > code down to something easy, that a desktop user could use, but maintain the > > strength of the core code. I suppose that means creating another project. > > Personally, I think it's a redundant idea. There are a couple dozen > "lightweight" RDBMSs available off Sourceforge. There is only one > "Heavy-duty" database: Us. And what on earth is the advantage of "PostgreSQL Lite"? I don't see how it would be easier to use in any way. The install dificulties could be worked around with an install wizard, and PGAdminII seems already to be a good admin interface. > I also shot down PostgreSQL as a possibility for inclusion with > OpenOffice.org, since Postgres is quite firmly a *server* database, and 70% > of OpenOffice.org installs are on Windows 95/98. Again, I don't see the problem. Server, schmerver; there's nothing wrong with running postgres for "non-server" tasks. Unless it's completely impossible to port to Win98, but is that really the case? > From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> > > On the other hand, we already outstrip MS SQL Server's feature set, > as well as being more reliable, lower-maintainence, multi-platform, > and cheaper. Frankly, the only thing that MS SQL has over us is > easy-but-unreliable GUI admin tools (backup, user, and database > management). Uh..."no way." I've found MS SQL Server is consistently faster when it comes to the crunch, due to things like writing a heck of a lot less to the log files, significantly less table overhead, having clustered indexes, and so on. (Probably more efficient buffer management also helps a bit.) Other areas where postgres can't compare is backup and restore, ability to do transaction log shipping, replication, access rights, disk allocation (i.e., being able to determine on which disk you're going to put a given table), and so on. SQL Server's optimizer also seems to me to be better, though I could be wrong there. cjs -- Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're alllight. --XTC
> BTW, as nice as PG-Admin is, I do not consider it a solution to our DB > management GUI desires. It only runs on Windows, and cannot be ported to > *nix. :-( > > Weren't we ressurecting PGAccess? What other development options do we have for soemthing that is GUI and portable to all platforms that postgresql runs on? Java? wxWindows? Qt? Gtk? I would think that Gtk is probably the most portable, and it has bindings to many languages, but we would probalby want to use C. Comments?
Josh Berkus wrote: > > Folks, > > > Both are useful while putting together a quick system. Especially if > > you project the ERD and PGAdmin processes onto a screen if working in a > > group for a quick application. Explain while creating. > > BTW, as nice as PG-Admin is, I do not consider it a solution to our DB > management GUI desires. It only runs on Windows, and cannot be ported to > *nix. :-( > > Weren't we ressurecting PGAccess? We are. I will grab their tar file tomorrow and update our CVS. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
> How many ppl here can honestly say they know of *at least* one company, if > not more, that are using PgSQL, but don't advertise, or let known, that > fact? I can think of a half dozen that we (PgSQL, Inc) have worked with > to convert, and train, so far ... Tom, call it RedHat DB or PgSQL, its the > same code base ... any numbers from that end? Bruce, how about from SRA? Most of the companies are Japanese-only and we would not have heard about, but there was one of interest. Tatuso, can we share that one? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Comparing PGSQL to MySQL is like apples to oranges. I don't see why one would want to take a great project and ORDBMS such as PGSQL and make a desktop version of it. When a desktop version is completely opposite of what PGSQL is, a commercial-grade RDBMS. Sure it lacks some of the areas when compared to Oracle and SQL Server... but I don't see how the PGSQL team is going to get as much money as Oracle/Microsoft to develop, perform R&D, and compete against commercial rivals. Yet, I have never seen an open-source database system as good as PGSQL, especially being as it is developed on a volunteer basis. As far as MySQL goes, they can have their easy-to-install and manage "features". I was on the MySQL-dev team for three months trying to convince Monty, Sasha, and others that MySQL needed features found in commercial systems (triggers, stored procs, transactions, constraints, etc.) They explicitly and rudely told me that MySQL wasn't developed to perform in these areas and to go elsewhere. Ever since then, I've been using PGSQL in a production basis. The argument for easy-to-install systems is common with many MySQL users, and those who don't understand how databases work. Sure it would be nice to have the system do complete self-tuning but in reality, the DBA should know how to make the database perform better under different situations. And, as for ease-of-install, I can download the PGSQL package for my OpenBSD boxes and it works perfectly, same on CYGWIN. If I want to tune it, I can. The objective of a good RDBMS is to allow fast access to data while also maintaining data integrity (ACID properties). I personally think that dumbing-down database systems only causes more problems. Look at Microsoft and NT/2K/XP. Now there are MCSEs all over the place acting like they are network admins because they can point-and-click to start a IIS service. Oooh, ahh. I would rather be on UNIX where I need to know exactly what's going on. And, UNIX users don't just jump up and blame the software when something goes wrong... as often happens with Windows and Access. The same follows with many MySQL users I've encountered. They don't have to do anything with the system, but consider themselves experts. With all my Oracle, SQL Server, and PostgreSQL boxes, I personally tune them to do what tasks are designated for them. I think PGSQL, as the project goes, is just fine as it is. A little commercial support and marketing could greatly assist in furthering the usage of PGSQL, true. If the group agrees that this would be a good idea, then I would be willing to do this. I also think it would be a good idea to get a PostgreSQL foundation or similar non-profit that could accept donations, etc. to further development. Don't dumb down the system and create a limited version just for people that want an open-source Access... they can use MySQL for that. Just my rant. Cordially, Jonah H. Harris, Chairman/CEO NightStar Corporation "One company, one world, one BIG difference!"
Hi Jonah, Was just looking around your company website, and it mentions a product called "Nextgres" which looks interesting : http://www.nightstarcorporation.com/?op=products How do you guys implement the PostgreSQL SQL parser as well as the Interbase and Oracle parsers? Is it like an adaption of PostgreSQL with addons or something? Also it mentions its compatible with PostgreSQL 7.2.2, so I'm wondering if that's a typo or something. :-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift "Jonah H. Harris" wrote: > > Comparing PGSQL to MySQL is like apples to oranges. I don't see why one > would want to take a great project and ORDBMS such as PGSQL and make a > desktop version of it. When a desktop version is completely opposite of > what PGSQL is, a commercial-grade RDBMS. Sure it lacks some of the areas > when compared to Oracle and SQL Server... but I don't see how the PGSQL team > is going to get as much money as Oracle/Microsoft to develop, perform R&D, > and compete against commercial rivals. Yet, I have never seen an > open-source database system as good as PGSQL, especially being as it is > developed on a volunteer basis. > > As far as MySQL goes, they can have their easy-to-install and manage > "features". I was on the MySQL-dev team for three months trying to convince > Monty, Sasha, and others that MySQL needed features found in commercial > systems (triggers, stored procs, transactions, constraints, etc.) They > explicitly and rudely told me that MySQL wasn't developed to perform in > these areas and to go elsewhere. Ever since then, I've been using PGSQL in > a production basis. The argument for easy-to-install systems is common with > many MySQL users, and those who don't understand how databases work. Sure > it would be nice to have the system do complete self-tuning but in reality, > the DBA should know how to make the database perform better under different > situations. And, as for ease-of-install, I can download the PGSQL package > for my OpenBSD boxes and it works perfectly, same on CYGWIN. If I want to > tune it, I can. > > The objective of a good RDBMS is to allow fast access to data while also > maintaining data integrity (ACID properties). I personally think that > dumbing-down database systems only causes more problems. Look at Microsoft > and NT/2K/XP. Now there are MCSEs all over the place acting like they are > network admins because they can point-and-click to start a IIS service. > Oooh, ahh. I would rather be on UNIX where I need to know exactly what's > going on. And, UNIX users don't just jump up and blame the software when > something goes wrong... as often happens with Windows and Access. The same > follows with many MySQL users I've encountered. They don't have to do > anything with the system, but consider themselves experts. With all my > Oracle, SQL Server, and PostgreSQL boxes, I personally tune them to do what > tasks are designated for them. I think PGSQL, as the project goes, is just > fine as it is. A little commercial support and marketing could greatly > assist in furthering the usage of PGSQL, true. If the group agrees that > this would be a good idea, then I would be willing to do this. I also think > it would be a good idea to get a PostgreSQL foundation or similar non-profit > that could accept donations, etc. to further development. Don't dumb down > the system and create a limited version just for people that want an > open-source Access... they can use MySQL for that. Just my rant. > > Cordially, > > Jonah H. Harris, Chairman/CEO > NightStar Corporation > "One company, one world, one BIG difference!" > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
> OK, I want to know, does anyone see MySQL gaining in market share in > comparison to PostgreSQL, or is MySQL gaining against other databases? > Is MySQL gaining sites faster than we are gaining sites? > > Every indication I can see is that PostgreSQL is gaining on MySQL. > > The Linux/FreeBSD comparison is potent. Does PostgreSQL remain a niche > player? Does *BSD remain a niche player? In all honestly, I think that MySQL simply expands the market for Postgres. MySQL is widely promoted by every idiot out there. So everyone and their dog starts using MySQL. Then about 6 months later they realise it sucks (which is _exactly_ what happened at our business) and then they switch to Postgres. Every day on PHPBuilder's SQL forum there is someone asking why their subselect doesn't work in MySQL and how hard is it to migrate from MySQL. In fact, probably the best thing we can offer is an _excellent_ MySQL to PostgreSQL conversion tool. Chris
> What other development options do we have for soemthing that is GUI and > portable to all platforms that postgresql runs on? Java? wxWindows? Qt? > Gtk? I would think that Gtk is probably the most portable, and it has > bindings to many languages, but we would probalby want to use C. TOra uses QT and is cool. Unfortunately Windows version costs money. It is utterly, totally awesome though. Don't know how good its Postgres support is working at the moment, tho. http://www.globecom.se/tora/ Chris
> > I wasn't really comparing to MySQL here. I meant, in relationship > > to MS Access. Start it up and it just works. > > Yeah, a point-and-drool installation wizard for postgres under windows > would be great. I think, from looking at PGAdminII, that we've already > got great admin tools; it seems just as good as SQL Server Enterprise > Manager to me. Once we have a proper Win32 native version, the guy in our office who writes the Win32 installers for our Palm/PocketPC software said he'll do one for us no sweat. We use the free WinAmp installer which is really good... Says it only takes a couple of days... Chris
Two points to this discussion. I hate to admit this, but to some people, a Windows version is important. Yesterday I learned that one product developed here will have a MySQL implementation because marketing wants a free implementation. The biggest advantage seems to be that it's working on Windows. And the project leader knows of nothing but Windows :-( Next group to impress is Database Designers. I've been looking for a design tool for some time, but there's no Open Source equivalent to ErWin. And ErWin can't create and reverse engineer PostgreSQL databases. -- Kaare Rasmussen --Linux, spil,-- Tlf: 3816 2582 Kaki Data tshirts, merchandize Fax: 3816 2501 Howitzvej 75 Åben 14.00-18.00 Web: www.suse.dk 2000 Frederiksberg Lørdag 11.00-17.00 Email: kar@kakidata.dk
> > Yeah, a point-and-drool installation wizard for postgres under windows > > would be great. I think, from looking at PGAdminII, that we've already > > got great admin tools; it seems just as good as SQL Server Enterprise > > Manager to me. > > Once we have a proper Win32 native version, the guy in our office who writes > the Win32 installers for our Palm/PocketPC software said he'll do one for us > no sweat. We use the free WinAmp installer which is really good... Says it > only takes a couple of days... BTW - here is the URL: http://www.nullsoft.com/free/nsis/ Chris
I have started a java admin tool on sourceforge just 2 weeks ago actually, www.sf.net/jpgadmin Dave On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 02:51, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > What other development options do we have for soemthing that is GUI and > > portable to all platforms that postgresql runs on? Java? wxWindows? Qt? > > Gtk? I would think that Gtk is probably the most portable, and it has > > bindings to many languages, but we would probalby want to use C. > > TOra uses QT and is cool. Unfortunately Windows version costs money. It is > utterly, totally awesome though. Don't know how good its Postgres support > is working at the moment, tho. > > http://www.globecom.se/tora/ > > Chris > > >
I have started a java admin tool on sourceforge just 2 weeks ago actually, www.sf.net/jpgadmin Dave On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 02:51, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > What other development options do we have for soemthing that is GUI and > > portable to all platforms that postgresql runs on? Java? wxWindows? Qt? > > Gtk? I would think that Gtk is probably the most portable, and it has > > bindings to many languages, but we would probalby want to use C. > > TOra uses QT and is cool. Unfortunately Windows version costs money. It is > utterly, totally awesome though. Don't know how good its Postgres support > is working at the moment, tho. > > http://www.globecom.se/tora/ > > Chris > > >
> TOra uses QT and is cool. Unfortunately Windows version costs money. It is > utterly, totally awesome though. Don't know how good its Postgres support > is working at the moment, tho. Is that true? There is QT Free for windows. It's not open sourced at all but is free as in beer.
could we get this added to gborg and a link created to it? we're working on marketing Gborg, and the software that is listed there, and Chris added (at my request) in code to the 'news' section so that whenever there are changes, it automatically gets sent to the -announce list so that ppl are aware of changes/enhancements/news ... On 26 Jun 2002, Dave Cramer wrote: > I have started a java admin tool on sourceforge just 2 weeks ago > actually, www.sf.net/jpgadmin > > Dave > > On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 02:51, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > What other development options do we have for soemthing that is GUI and > > > portable to all platforms that postgresql runs on? Java? wxWindows? Qt? > > > Gtk? I would think that Gtk is probably the most portable, and it has > > > bindings to many languages, but we would probalby want to use C. > > > > TOra uses QT and is cool. Unfortunately Windows version costs money. It is > > utterly, totally awesome though. Don't know how good its Postgres support > > is working at the moment, tho. > > > > http://www.globecom.se/tora/ > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(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 > > >
Curt, You do point out some good areas in which PostgreSQL needs to improve if we're going to go after the MS SQL market. The rest of this e-mail, though, is a refutation of your comparison. As a professional MS SQL Server 7.0 manager, I have to disagree. However, I have not used MS SQL 2000 extensively, so it'spossible that some of these issues have been dealt with by MS in the version upgrade. > Uh..."no way." I've found MS SQL Server is consistently faster when > it > comes to the crunch, due to things like writing a heck of a lot less > to the log files, significantly less table overhead, having clustered > indexes, and so on. Up to about a million records. For some reason, when MS SQL Server 7.0 reaches the 1,000,000 point, it slows down to a crawl regardless of how much RAM and processor power you throw at it (such as a Proliant 7000 with dual processors, 2 gigs of RAM and Raid-5 ... and still only one person at a time can do summaries on the 3,000,000 record timecard table. Bleah!) And clustered indexes are only really useful on tables that don't see much write activity. > (Probably more efficient buffer management also > helps a bit.) Also not in my experience. I've had quite a few occasions where MS SQL keeps chewing up RAM until it runs out of available RAM ... and then keeps going, locking up the NT server and forcing an emergency reboot. MS SQL doesn't seem to be able to cope with limitedRAM, even when that limit is 1gb. > Other areas where postgres can't compare is backup and > restore, Hmmm .... MS SQL has nice GUI tools including tape management, and supports incremental backup and Point-in-time recovery. On the other hand, MS SQL backup takes approximately 3x as long for a similar sized database as PostgreSQL, the backup files are binary and can't be viewed or edited, sometimes the restore just fails for no good reason corrupting your database and shutting down the system, restore to a database with different security setup is sheer hell, and the database files can't be moved on the disk without destroying them. I'd say we're at a draw with MS SQL as far as backup/restore goes. Ours is more reliable, portable, and faster. Theirs haslots of nice admin tools and features. >ability to do transaction log shipping, Well, we don't have a transaction log in the SQL Server sense, so this isn't relevant. >replication, This is a missing piece for Postgres that's been much discussed on this list. > access > rights, We have these, especially with 7.3's new DB permissions. disk allocation (i.e., being able to determine on which disk > you're going to put a given table), This is possible with Postgres, just rather manual. And, unlike MS SQL, we can move the table without corrupting the database. Once again, all we need is a good admin interface. > and so on. SQL Server's optimizer > also seems to me to be better, though I could be wrong there. Having ported applications: You are wrong. There are a few things SQL server does faster (straight selects with lots (>40) of JOINs is the only one I've proven) but on anything complex, it bogs down.Particularly things like nested subselects. Now, let me mention a few of MS SQL's defects that you've missed: Poor/nonexistant network security (the port 1433 hole,hey?), huge resource consumption, a byzantine authentication structure that frequently requires hours of troubleshooting by an NT security expert, weak implementation of the SQL standard with lots of proprietary extensions, 8k data pages, no configuration of memory usage, and those stupid, stupid READ locks that make many complex updates deadlock. -Josh Berkus
what is gborg ? :) > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Marc G. Fournier > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 11:21 AM > To: Dave Cramer > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Democracy and organisation : let's make a > revolution > > > > could we get this added to gborg and a link created to it? we're working > on marketing Gborg, and the software that is listed there, and Chris added > (at my request) in code to the 'news' section so that whenever there are > changes, it automatically gets sent to the -announce list so that ppl are > aware of changes/enhancements/news ... > > On 26 Jun 2002, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > I have started a java admin tool on sourceforge just 2 weeks ago > > actually, www.sf.net/jpgadmin > > > > Dave > > > > On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 02:51, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > > What other development options do we have for soemthing > that is GUI and > > > > portable to all platforms that postgresql runs on? Java? > wxWindows? Qt? > > > > Gtk? I would think that Gtk is probably the most portable, > and it has > > > > bindings to many languages, but we would probalby want to use C. > > > > > > TOra uses QT and is cool. Unfortunately Windows version > costs money. It is > > > utterly, totally awesome though. Don't know how good its > Postgres support > > > is working at the moment, tho. > > > > > > http://www.globecom.se/tora/ > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > > >
Justin Clift wrote: > Hi Jonah, > > Was just looking around your company website, and it mentions a product > called "Nextgres" which looks interesting : > > http://www.nightstarcorporation.com/?op=products > > How do you guys implement the PostgreSQL SQL parser as well as the > Interbase and Oracle parsers? Is it like an adaption of PostgreSQL with > addons or something? Also it mentions its compatible with PostgreSQL > 7.2.2, so I'm wondering if that's a typo or something. They are so compatible, they are compatible with releases we haven't even made yet. ;-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Marc G. Fournier writes: > How many ppl here can honestly say they know of *at least* one company, if > not more, that are using PgSQL, but don't advertise, or let known, that > fact? Of course they don't. No company advertises what software it uses internally. They don't advertise that they use accounting software X, operating system Y, or instant message tool Z. They don't advertise that they use Foo brand telephones or Bar brand furniture. They have other things to do. The advertisings for Oracle are because Oracle is seen to be rock solid. But no one advertises that they use MS SQL Server, Sybase, or Informix. That creates the association (just like PostgreSQL, if PostgreSQL had any association), it's almost as good but cheaper. Why would anyone advertise with that? On the other hand, those places that do advertise that they're using a particular non-Oracle database either have a marketing interest of their own, or they do not, in fact, have other things to do. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Justin, It doesn't appear that my response was posted to the list. I can thank YANOCC for that. However, did you receive it? Bruce, Does make for a good joke, but nowhere is compatibility mentioned. It was discussing the SQL grammar. And, it should have read PostgreSQL 7.1.2. The last update to the site was very late and there are other misspellings as well. That's what four hours helping people in #C on IRC will do to you. Always glad to add that extra little bit of humor. Sorry. -Jonah -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 11:53 AM To: Justin Clift Cc: PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Nextgres? Justin Clift wrote: > Hi Jonah, > > Was just looking around your company website, and it mentions a product > called "Nextgres" which looks interesting : > > http://www.nightstarcorporation.com/?op=products > > How do you guys implement the PostgreSQL SQL parser as well as the > Interbase and Oracle parsers? Is it like an adaption of PostgreSQL with > addons or something? Also it mentions its compatible with PostgreSQL > 7.2.2, so I'm wondering if that's a typo or something. They are so compatible, they are compatible with releases we haven't even made yet. ;-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Josh Berkus wrote: > As a professional MS SQL Server 7.0 manager.... Well, I wouldn't call myself a professional at managing SQL Server, but I did do about two years of work on an application (database design, programming and day-to-day running of the production system) that ran on SQL Server 7.0 and gave it a pretty good workout. I've used 2000 a bit, but most of my comments apply to my experience with 7.0. > > Uh..."no way." I've found MS SQL Server is consistently faster when > > it comes to the crunch, due to things like writing a heck of a lot > > less to the log files, significantly less table overhead, having > > clustered indexes, and so on. > > Up to about a million records. For some reason, when MS SQL Server 7.0 > reaches the 1,000,000 point, it slows down to a crawl regardless of > how much RAM and processor power you throw at it (such as a Proliant > 7000 with dual processors, 2 gigs of RAM and Raid-5 ... and still only > one person at a time can do summaries on the 3,000,000 record timecard > table. Bleah!) Really? I've dealt with 85 millon row tables in SQL Server without difficulty, and the machine was not that much larger that then one you describe. (2-way 800 MHz Xeon, 4 GB RAM, Clarion 12-disk RAID array.) > And clustered indexes are only really useful on tables that don't see > much write activity. I've not found that to be true. If the write activity is *really* heavy you've got a problem, but if it's moderate, but not really low, clustered indexes can be really helpful. To give you an idea of what clustering can do for a query in some circumstances, clustering a 500 million row table under postgres on the appropriate column reduced one of my queries from 70 seconds to 0.6 seconds. The problem with postgres is having to re-cluster it on a regular basis.... > I'd say we're at a draw with MS SQL as far as backup/restore goes. > Ours is more reliable, portable, and faster. Theirs has lots of nice > admin tools and features. While you're right that there have been problems with restores on SQL server from time to time, I've done a *lot* of large (120 GB database) backups and restores (copying a production system to a development server), and for large tables, I've found SQL Server's binary backups to be faster to restore than postgres' "re-create the database from COPY statements" system. > >ability to do transaction log shipping, > > Well, we don't have a transaction log in the SQL Server sense, so this > isn't relevant. It is completely relevant, because log shipping allows fast, easy and reliable replication. Not to mention another good method of backup. > > access rights, > > We have these, especially with 7.3's new DB permissions. 7.2 has extremely poor access permissions. 7.3 is not out yet. > disk allocation (i.e., being able to determine on which disk > you're > going to put a given table), > > This is possible with Postgres, just rather manual. No. Run CLUSTER on the table, or drop an index and re-create it, or just expand the table so that it moves into yet another 1 GB file, and watch the table, or part of it, move to a different disk. (The last situation can be handled by pre-creating symlinks, but ugh!) > And, unlike MS SQL, we can move the table without corrupting the database. You can do that in MS SQL as well, just not by moving files around . Letting the database deal with this is a Good Thing, IMHO . > Once again, all we need is a good admin interface. Now, this I don't understand so well. PGAdminII seems pretty much as good as Enterprise Manager to me, though I admit that I've looked at it only briefly. > Now, let me mention a few of MS SQL's defects that you've missed: > Poor/nonexistant network security (the port 1433 hole, hey?) Hm? You'll have to explain this one to me. > huge resource consumption I've just not found that to be so. Specifics? > a byzantine authentication structure that frequently requires hours of > troubleshooting by an NT security expert, Easy solution: don't use NT security. Ever. It's a nightmare. > 8k data pages You mean like postgresql? Though the row size limit can be a bit annoying, I'll agree. But because of SQL Server's extent management, the page size is not a big problem. And look at some of the advantages, too. Much less row overhead, for example. > no configuration of memory usage, I've always been able to tell it how much memory to use. There's not much you can do beyond that, but what did you want to do beyond that? It's not like you're stuck with postgres's double-buffering (postgres and OS) system, or limits on connections based on how much of a certain special type of memory you allocate, or things like that. (I love the way that SQL server can deal with five thousand connections without even blinking.) > and those stupid, stupid READ locks that make many complex updates > deadlock. I'll admit that this is one area that I usually like much better about postgres. Although the locking system, though harder to use, has its advantages. For example, with postgresql the application *must* be prepared to retry a transaction if it fails during a serialized transaction. Application writers don't need to do this in SQL server. (It just deadlocks instead, and then it's the DBA's problem. :-)) cjs -- Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're alllight. --XTC
> > TOra uses QT and is cool. Unfortunately Windows version costs money. It is > > utterly, totally awesome though. Don't know how good its Postgres support > > is working at the moment, tho. > > Is that true? There is QT Free for windows. It's not open sourced at all but > is free as in beer. No, TOra itself wants money for the windows version. Chris
Marc, I tried to create it on gborg originally, but could not complete the form ?? But to answer your question I would prefer to have it at gborg, so I will try again and let you know the results. Dave On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 10:21, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > could we get this added to gborg and a link created to it? we're working > on marketing Gborg, and the software that is listed there, and Chris added > (at my request) in code to the 'news' section so that whenever there are > changes, it automatically gets sent to the -announce list so that ppl are > aware of changes/enhancements/news ... > > On 26 Jun 2002, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > I have started a java admin tool on sourceforge just 2 weeks ago > > actually, www.sf.net/jpgadmin > > > > Dave > > > > On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 02:51, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > > What other development options do we have for soemthing that is GUI and > > > > portable to all platforms that postgresql runs on? Java? wxWindows? Qt? > > > > Gtk? I would think that Gtk is probably the most portable, and it has > > > > bindings to many languages, but we would probalby want to use C. > > > > > > TOra uses QT and is cool. Unfortunately Windows version costs money. It is > > > utterly, totally awesome though. Don't know how good its Postgres support > > > is working at the moment, tho. > > > > > > http://www.globecom.se/tora/ > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(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 > > > > > > > >