Slashdot discussion

Bruce Momjian wrote:

OK, thanks to the www.phpbuilder.com PostgreSQL/MySQL comparison, there
is another PostgreSQL/MySQL thread on shashdot.org. Looks interesting,
and of course, we are looking good too.

I stuck my two cents in of course. :)
I think most people are of the opinion that each too is good to fit a
certain niche. Without wanting to starta thread war I think postgres is
great, but for many people the learning curve is too great and thus
MySQL is a good introduction.
I think a lot of people get started in MySQL and move up to Postgres.

Cheers,
Graeme

Graeme Merrall wrote:

Without wanting to starta thread war I think postgres is
great, but for many people the learning curve is too great and thus
MySQL is a good introduction.

In what way is mysql easier to learn?

Chris Bitmead wrote:

Graeme Merrall wrote:

Without wanting to starta thread war I think postgres is
great, but for many people the learning curve is too great and thus
MySQL is a good introduction.

Well speaking personally I found the documentation for MySQL better, the
install process simpler and getting stuff done just generally easier.
Things like phpMyAdmin just aren't out there for postgres although the
pgsql port is a pretty damn fine effort and I've never seen anything
like pgaccess for mysql. It may have been that I got my start in mSQL to
the transition was a little easier. Having said that, having now seen
Oracle and various other larger RDBMS's I understand the niches that
postgres and mysql fill. Postgres is now my DB of choice so I'm not
anti-mysql or anti-pgsql and if I don't like the docs that's fine, I
should just do something about it.
One thing that really cheeses me off are ppl going "Your documentation
sucks - do something about it" in an open source situation. There's the
CVS big fella, get writing. And if I was in a situation to do that, I
would.

Cheers,
Graeme

I think most people are of the opinion that each too is good to fit a
certain niche. Without wanting to starta thread war I think postgres is
great, but for many people the learning curve is too great and thus
MySQL is a good introduction.

I'm curious about this. For me PostgreSQL was easy to build, it was
trivially easy to create a non-superuser user account (important when
just learning!), and the online documentation is both easy to follow
and is in nice small pages. Bruce's book helps too, of course.

In contrast, MySQL is a right pain to build at least on a low end
non-Linux system, and to create a non-superuser account involves
ridiculous amounts of study of the permissions model MySQL uses.

After surmounting those challenges I still find the MySQL
documentation difficult and it isn't helped by being in such large
HTML pages. (I see in another response someone else found this the
other way around though!)

Finally, PostgreSQL offers features that are a real boon to my
application such as referential integrity and transactions. I'm sold.
(I'll even finish the error logging code I promised Real Soon Now;
stuff happened but I'm back on it.)

Regards,

Giles

P.S. My tolerance is negligible for anything that goes "beep" the way
mysql insists on doing when giving error messages. Like anyone needs
that when they're trying to figure out SQL syntax! Having to figure
out SQL syntax is pennance enough, surely ...

P.S. My tolerance is negligible for anything that goes "beep" the way
mysql insists on doing when giving error messages. Like anyone needs
that when they're trying to figure out SQL syntax! Having to figure
out SQL syntax is pennance enough, surely ...

MySQL beeps at you on an error. Ewe.

-- 
  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

In article <am.pgsql.general.963210387.90464@illiad.adhesivemedia.com>,
Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> wrote:

Graeme Merrall wrote:

Without wanting to starta thread war I think postgres is
great, but for many people the learning curve is too great and thus
MySQL is a good introduction.

In what way is mysql easier to learn?

I think MySQL is easier to learn since there are a lot of DB features
(transactions, views, sub-queries, etc) that are missing... so there's a
lot less to learn... I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing though
since people end up "hacking" there way around that sort of thing -- I
know I did...
There are a lot more third-party tools (someone mentioned that web admin
tool) etc... which a lot of people like. I tend to stick to the command
line and for the most part they are both the "same" in how easy/hard it
is to learn them.
I personally find postgres' docs to be much better if only because it is
broken up into reasonable chunks... and I like the very explicit
statements indicating whether this is a postgres extension etc... (yes,
i know there is a section in mysql, but i don't think it's mentioned
with the defination of a particular statement).
-philip

Bruce Momjian writes:

OK, thanks to the www.phpbuilder.com PostgreSQL/MySQL comparison, there
is another PostgreSQL/MySQL thread on shashdot.org. Looks interesting,
and of course, we are looking good too.

Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.

I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?

--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders v�g 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden

[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]

Bruce Momjian writes:

OK, thanks to the www.phpbuilder.com PostgreSQL/MySQL comparison, there
is another PostgreSQL/MySQL thread on shashdot.org. Looks interesting,
and of course, we are looking good too.

Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.

I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?

I am confused by this also.

-- 
  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

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?

Good question. My 2 cents...

1) The RPM-installed binaries that come with RH 6.0/6.1 can easily and
stealthly interfere with a src.tar.gz installation due to $PATH settings
(accidentally drawing on /bin/p* instead of /opt/pgsql/bin/p* ... Adding
detection to setup/install scripts might mitigate that.

2) Write an install wizard script that figures everything out for the
user based on questions/prompts.

Regards,
Ed Loehr

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:

I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?

IMHO it's partly a documentation problem, and partly a matter of people
not having looked at recent versions. A few years back it did take some
know-how to get Postgres installed.

I think the install-procedure docs in 7.0 are markedly better than they
were before, but they could still use further improvement.

Your work on configure/build/install scripts will help too of course ;-)

regards, tom lane

Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.

I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?

Possibly because for most people the process is a simple './configure;
make; make install'

Pgsql doesn't do this. Not the install process is any less better but
more because pgsql is a different beast and it's desifgned to work
differently. Just as (say) you can't install Oracle the same way as
MySQL, you can't install pgsql the same way either. The price of freedom
is enternal vigilance or in our case, the price of a more powerful DB is
a harder install :)
I had the ermm.. joy of installing Oracle in a dev situation and that
was much tricker then a pgsql install. env vars, directory set up -
sheesh :)

Cheers,
Graeme

Chris Bitmead wrote:

Graeme Merrall wrote:

Without wanting to starta thread war I think postgres is
great, but for many people the learning curve is too great and thus
MySQL is a good introduction.

In what way is mysql easier to learn?

To my point of view postgres is more easy to install and to start from.
I have
began to learn SQL and database with postgres95. It's still the most
easiest
database to install and to manage. The only thing it's to read
documentation
and Postgres is now very well documented. I have tried to run mysql
many
time but I never be patient enought to see it run. Beginers knowledge is
perhaps
more advanced than in Postgres mailing list because every one have a
friend
who have run mysql ... Not me :-)

Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.

I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?

It's not that, to me it's support. I was looking at doing a postgres / php based
website, but couldn't find anything about this combination anywhere, it's all
mysql. I'm now writing my own, and getting some feedback :)
http://designmagick.50megs.com/postgresql-tutorial/
any comments would be great (I know about the serial function, I've updated it
but haven't uploaded the new version yet).

Chris.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Graeme Merrall wrote:

Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.

I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?

Possibly because for most people the process is a simple './configure;
make; make install'

Pgsql doesn't do this. Not the install process is any less better but

huh? all i do is './configure;make;make install' ...

The Hermit Hacker wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Graeme Merrall wrote:

Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.

I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?

Possibly because for most people the process is a simple './configure;
make; make install'

Pgsql doesn't do this. Not the install process is any less better but

huh? all i do is './configure;make;make install' ...

I was referring to creating a new user etc which although mysql says it
would be a good idea to do, doesn't recommend from the start.
Hmm.. mind you, I've yet to do a v7.x install so I should just kepe my
trap shut :)

Bruce Momjian writes:

OK, thanks to the www.phpbuilder.com PostgreSQL/MySQL comparison, there
is another PostgreSQL/MySQL thread on shashdot.org. Looks interesting,
and of course, we are looking good too.

Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.

I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?

I am confused by this also.

Most of us tend to think of the development of the human species as if
the natural evolution was still a factor. It isn't anymore -- not so
much as it used to be. Back in the 19th century, what where the
chances of survival for a child born with a three-chamber heart? What
are these now?

Because of the ever diminishing evolutionary pressure, we become ever
more different and the concept of "bad" becomes murky. What once was
deadly is just abnormal today, and may even be OK tomorrow. How could
such an increasing variety pass unnoticed in the world of software,
which, like other tools in general, is arguably an extension of one's
organism?

I recall the days just about 20 years back, when Bill first emerged
with his BASIC. Who in their sane mind would then bet on its
survival, let alone see any commercial value in it? Even today, I know
lots of people who believe that Bill's BASIC was and is the best
software available to them. Who cares whether it works or not? It's
good. Period.

Bottom line -- we will eventually come to peace with the following
ugly facts:

* Bad things survive
* Useless things flourish
* The perception of the difficulty and simplicity is random
* The presence of features may repel users as much as the lack thereof
* A fairly large population *prefers* to do things in the hard way
* Free market is not automatically a smart one (look at the destiny
of the Dvorak keyboard or how they harass the GM food manufacturers).

Sad as all this is, we are going to leave with it. But you folks are
doing a great job!

--Gene

On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 08:40:27PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Graeme Merrall wrote:

Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.

I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?

Possibly because for most people the process is a simple './configure;
make; make install'

Pgsql doesn't do this. Not the install process is any less better but

huh? all i do is './configure;make;make install' ...

And what about CVS?

bash-2.01$ cd ../pgsql
bash-2.01$ cvs -z9 update -dP
cvs [update aborted]: authorization failed: server postgresql.org rejected
access
bash-2.01$

-Egon

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Graeme Merrall wrote:

The Hermit Hacker wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Graeme Merrall wrote:

Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.

I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?

Possibly because for most people the process is a simple './configure;
make; make install'

Pgsql doesn't do this. Not the install process is any less better but

huh? all i do is './configure;make;make install' ...

I was referring to creating a new user etc which although mysql says it
would be a good idea to do, doesn't recommend from the start.
Hmm.. mind you, I've yet to do a v7.x install so I should just kepe my
trap shut :)

what? mysql let's you install as root?? :)

Just a comment on the Slashdot thread in general. I see us really
gaining on MySQL. Every month we get farther. Our rate of improvement
means we should leave them in the dust in 1-2 years.

-- 
  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