Re: MySQL file system

Hehe, very amusing. (albeit vaporware for now)

I guess they want to it with KOrbit, and some software translating
cobra->mysql (mysql doesn't have corba bindings yet, to my knowledge).

The same should be possible with postgres, and it actually DOES have corba
bindings (albeit they are broken AFAIK :)

-alex

I'm sure something like this would be possible

On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Ned Lilly wrote:

Ned Lilly wrote:

Anyone heard about this?

http://no.spam.ee/~tonu/mysqlfs.html

I was bout to copy about 3000 RFCs onto my hard drive last night.
Bowsing them online was just too painfully slow.

Then I realized that although I had the disk space for the total file
size, they were mostly smaller than a block on my disk, so I was going
to loose alot of space.

My first thought was, well postgress would stor that as one file - that
might work. Then I thought "I'm trying to be FAST here -- any time spent
on this is a distraction. Too bad there is no such thing as
PostgreSQL/FS"

It's not earth shattering, and sure there are other solutions. But it's
cute and could be useful. Add some bugs and a few security compromises,
and it almost looks like M$.

--
Karl DeBisschop kdebisschop@alert.infoplease.com
Learning Network/Information Please http://www.infoplease.com
Netsaint Plugin Developer kdebisschop@users.sourceforge.net

Hi all -
I'm not here to start a war, but it seems to me that there is a
fairly large amount of MySQL bashing in this group. Why? What's the
point? It seems to me that if PostgreSQL wants an enemy to fight it
should be Microsoft SQLServer and Oracle. It seems to me that it's
PostgreSQL/MySQL vs those two. Why fight amongst ourselves?

Now, if there is something truly lacking in MySQL, that completely
different because this stuff ends up in the archives and people make
decisions based off what they find there. However, it needs to be kept
professional, don't you think?

What are my impressions going to be of PostgreSQL (and now Great Bridge
since their name will pop up as well) if I search for "mysql vs
postgresql" and see a lot of mysql bashing posts in thse lists? I'm going
to think you all are a bunch of whining losers who can't fathom the
possibility that there might be good (or even better) alternatives out
there.

That can't be good for PostgreSQL, can it?

-philip

Agree 100%

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Hallstrom [mailto:philip@adhesivemedia.com]
Sent: 17 January 2001 10:05
To: PostgreSQL General
Subject: Why is there so much MySQL bashing???

What are my impressions going to be of PostgreSQL (and now Great Bridge
since their name will pop up as well) if I search for "mysql vs
postgresql" and see a lot of mysql bashing posts in thse lists? I'm going
to think you all are a bunch of whining losers who can't fathom the
possibility that there might be good (or even better) alternatives out
there.

That can't be good for PostgreSQL, can it?

-philip

Take your own advice and keep it professional. Drop the part about whining
losers and people might not take this as a troll. ;-) Sorry to everyone,
but I just couldn't resist answering this.

Cheers,
Craig

more on slashdot:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/01/16/1855253&mode=nested

Alex Pilosov wrote:

Hehe, very amusing. (albeit vaporware for now)

I guess they want to it with KOrbit, and some software translating
cobra->mysql (mysql doesn't have corba bindings yet, to my knowledge).

The same should be possible with postgres, and it actually DOES have corba
bindings (albeit they are broken AFAIK :)

-alex

I'm sure something like this would be possible

On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Ned Lilly wrote:

Anyone heard about this?

http://no.spam.ee/~tonu/mysqlfs.html

--
----------------------------------------------------
Ned Lilly e: ned@greatbridge.com
Vice President w: www.greatbridge.com
Evangelism / Hacker Relations v: 757.233.5523
Great Bridge, LLC f: 757.233.5555

Hey Guys,

I am using PHP to process this query - I get the error shown below: I
can't see why I should get this error as I have other similar queries that
work fine.

$sql = "insert into projects values('$number', '$description', '$date',
'$deadline', '$manager', '$csindex', '$status', '$dataentrycontact',
'$company', '$unique')";

$sql_result = pg_exec($connection,$sql) or die ("Couldn't execute query.");

Warning: 1 is not a PostgresSQL link index in
/www/vhtdocs/testarea/intranet/addproject.php3 on line 23

Any help appreciated.

Thanks,
Abe

On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Craig L. Ching wrote:

Take your own advice and keep it professional. Drop the part about whining
losers and people might not take this as a troll. ;-) Sorry to everyone,
but I just couldn't resist answering this.

No argument here, I was about to answer myself.

Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net
128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================

You're right of course, I should have left that out... but my point is
still valid.

-philip

On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Craig L. Ching wrote:

I think alot of the perceived bashing from the pg community is due
to the fact historically most of mysql's marketing and pr has
been deceptive and outright wrong. After so much crying wolf it is
hard for the village to believe anything the boy has to say.
The majority of open source db installs are running on what the
pg community percieves to be an inferior product. Granted it is
*our* perception but if you look at the breakdown of users of mysql
vs postgres it tends to be professional programmer prefer to use
pg. This is due to the fact that have a more concrete understanding
of the two underlying architectures. Mysql is a fine product for
the majority of users. Why because it works, is easy to work with,
and the momentum is with them, but if you are a looking at a more
rock solid product with a codebase that will approach the demands
that mission critical Oracle like users need PG is vastly closer and
will be the only choice that will most likely perform up to the
standards that an enterprise solution demands.
These opinions are my own but the more informed programmers (PHDs and
such) will probably agree.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Philip Hallstrom wrote:

I'm not here to start a war, but it seems to me that there is a
fairly large amount of MySQL bashing in this group. Why?

I believe it's a matter of different cultural backgrounds: core
developers and old users are mostly concerned about portability, SQL
standards compliance, result correctness. MySql community is geared
toward speed, ease-of-use, web integration, hyped featurism. While all
these goals belong to the other "camp" as well, it's a matter of
approach. Personally, I don't like Monty and other's approach which
seems to come from people who never opened a Database theory textbook
(strictly IMVHO ofcourse).

--
Alessio F. Bragadini alessio@albourne.com
APL Financial Services http://village.albourne.com
Nicosia, Cyprus phone: +357-2-755750

"It is more complicated than you think"
-- The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925

On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 17:36:24 -0500, Karl DeBisschop wrote:

Then I thought "I'm trying to be FAST here -- any time spent on this is a
distraction. Too bad there is no such thing as PostgreSQL/FS"

There is/was, for Linux at least; see
http://noframes.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue42/1383.html

I haven't been able to find the sources though.

HTH,
Ray
--
I'm having trouble keeping my clever schemes separate from my sarcasm.
Wally

should be Microsoft SQLServer and Oracle. It seems to me that it's
PostgreSQL/MySQL vs those two. Why fight amongst ourselves?

Now, if there is something truly lacking in MySQL, that completely
different because this stuff ends up in the archives and people make
decisions based off what they find there. However, it needs to be kept
professional, don't you think?

I think it's mostly because of the differences between PostgreSQL and MySQL
in areas like transactions, reliability, scalability, etc., that make one
look like a child's toy and one look like a commercial product (I'll leave
it to the reader to figure out which is which :). Unfortunately, due to its
higher profile, if anyone looks on postgres and mysql as the open source
"alternatives", they're just going to apply what they've seen of MySQL to
both. That certainly doesn't help postgres feel any better. I, for one,
prefer to distance the two products as much as possible for that same
reason. Otherwise, it makes it harder to pitch it to my boss, you know :)

Rob Nelson
rdnelson@co.centre.pa.us

Philip Hallstrom wrote:

You're right of course, I should have left that out... but my point is
still valid.

Pointing out the serious limitations in MySQL is not, IMHO, bashing.

MySQL currently has serious limitations for many RDBMS uses.

Concurrent performance under industry-standard benchmarks in one
indicator. I my previous conversations with Monty, anytime I brought up
the subject of multiuser benchmarks, he consistently stated that the
single-user case was more important, as that's how the current (as of
the last time I looked) MySQL 'benchmarks' are structured.

Concurrent benchmarking, with a real-world mix of queries (such as AS3AP
and TPC-C), is far more useful to those who are using an RDBMS for more
than just a web backend. Although, it is a useful average indicator of
web backend performance as well.

And I have to note that SourceForge switched for performance reasons.

Seems there was a great deal of Postgres-bashing from the MySQL side not
long ago.....
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

carl garland wrote:

I think alot of the perceived bashing from the pg community is due
to the fact historically most of mysql's marketing and pr has
been deceptive and outright wrong. After so much crying wolf it is
hard for the village to believe anything the boy has to say.
The majority of open source db installs are running on what the
pg community percieves to be an inferior product. Granted it is
*our* perception but if you look at the breakdown of users of mysql
vs postgres it tends to be professional programmer prefer to use
pg. This is due to the fact that have a more concrete understanding
of the two underlying architectures. Mysql is a fine product for
the majority of users. Why because it works, is easy to work with,
and the momentum is with them, but if you are a looking at a more
rock solid product with a codebase that will approach the demands
that mission critical Oracle like users need PG is vastly closer and
will be the only choice that will most likely perform up to the
standards that an enterprise solution demands.
These opinions are my own but the more informed programmers (PHDs and
such) will probably agree.

Sorry to add to the noise, but I must add that, to the best of my
knowlege, MySQL currently (my last look on their pages, especially the
"crash-me" pages, was about 2 weeks ago) has :
- No transactions
- No views
- No subqueries
and is therefore an excruciating pain in the *ss to use for intricated
problems (databases using a lot of tables whith highly irregular
structures).

Furthermore, various reports show that for simple problems
(simple-structure databases), MySQL has a better performance under light
loads, but that PostgreSQL scales bertter (the degradation of
performance with load is much slower). This information I have
secondhand, so I cannot commit myself on it.

In other words, it seems that MySQL developpers favored high simple-case
performance over competence, thus missing the whole point of an RDBMS
over an indexed file collection : the ability to find answers to
questions not planned at design time.

My two (Euro-)cents,

Emmanuel Charpentier

--
Emmanuel Charpentier

That can't be good for PostgreSQL, can it?

Neither can not being able to do rpm -Uvh and have it work first time...

Nor not finding a Dreamweaver Ultradev database connection for Postgresql
in the live data menu when there is a Mysql one...

Nor not being able to find somewhere to get a Postgresql / JSP application
hosted when there are hundreds of ISPs hosting Mysql / JSP...

All these things must change. Just being better is not good enough - the
Mac is a better desktop computer than a Windows PC.

Cheers

Tony Grant

--
It's just some computers connected together...

Tony Grant wrote:

That can't be good for PostgreSQL, can it?

Neither can not being able to do rpm -Uvh and have it work first time...

Hmmmm... When was the last time you tried?

Thanks to the 'Do No Harm' principle, it would be foolhardy to do what
has to be done to upgrade between major versions in a fully automatic
fashion. So the semiautomatic way it is now done is the current best
compromise.

Of course, the ideal would be for a new version of PostgreSQL to be able
to at least read and convert existing tables on the fly (as in when
postmaster is started, or when a backend is first brought up on the
table in question, or even a standalone migration utility that doesn't
require an old version of the backend to read the old version files),
but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Yes, the existing scheme is a little baroque -- but it's better than it
used to be.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

On 2001.01.18 17:31:29 +0100 Lamar Owen wrote:

Tony Grant wrote:

That can't be good for PostgreSQL, can it?

Neither can not being able to do rpm -Uvh and have it work first

time...

Hmmmm... When was the last time you tried?

Yesterday...

The RedHat 6.2 rpms are broken if they find the tiniest trace of a
preceding instalation. The machine target for 7.0.3 had a copy of 6.5.x
installed when the ReHat server was installed. The database system was
initiallised but never used.

I removed all traces of the 6.5.x install and did a 7.0.3 install.

initdb fails of course because there must be something somewhere that makes
it choke. I have installed previous versions from source and spent hours
getting permissions right so that initdb would run. Now I just want to set
up a new machine and rpm is a convenient way of doing that. When it doesn't
work as advertized it is a little "annoying".

Any pointers greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Tony Grant

--
It's just some computers connected together...

On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:47:55PM +0100, Tony Grant wrote:

<snip>

the
Mac is a better desktop computer than a Windows PC.

Gratuitous flamebait, just in case anyone wondered.

Paul