Postgress and MYSQL

Bob Powell said:

I continue to see articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for
development an open_source web database.

Why would IBM use and promote postgres when it is much closer an offering
to DB2 than MySQL, and a much bigger commercial threat?

I'll bet that IBM will be planning on a nice migration path from the
open-source-web-db to DB2...

John Sidney-Woollett

"Bob Powell" <Bob@hotchkiss.org> writes:

I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention.

You are seeing the effects of MySQL AB's large marketing budget;
they have the time and money to cause such articles to appear.
I'm not sure there is much we can do to counter this in the short run.
(I do wonder how quickly they are running through that $19 mil
investment though ...)

regards, tom lane

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

"Bob Powell" <Bob@hotchkiss.org> writes:

I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention.

You are seeing the effects of MySQL AB's large marketing budget;
they have the time and money to cause such articles to appear.
I'm not sure there is much we can do to counter this in the short run.
(I do wonder how quickly they are running through that $19 mil
investment though ...)

Let's see if they can beat GB? *evil grin*

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

"Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

Tom> "Bob Powell" <Bob@hotchkiss.org> writes:

I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention.

Tom> You are seeing the effects of MySQL AB's large marketing budget;
Tom> they have the time and money to cause such articles to appear.
Tom> I'm not sure there is much we can do to counter this in the short run.
Tom> (I do wonder how quickly they are running through that $19 mil
Tom> investment though ...)

My new buzz-meme (pass it along)...

"You're still using MySQL... that's sooooo 90's!"

:-)

Seriously, the space occupied by MySQL has been encroached by SQLite
from the low end (if you just want SQL access to a data file,
including transactions) and PostgreSQL from the high end (when you
want a full-featured database). I think they've completely overlapped
at this point (especially when I just discovered yesterday that you
can register Perl callbacks for user-defined functions and aggregates
in DBD::SQLite!), so MySQL really doesn't have much of a win at either
end.

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/&gt;
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

(I do wonder how quickly they are running through that $19 mil
investment though ...)

Let's see if they can beat GB? *evil grin*

I seriously doubt they will be a GB... MySQL is at least making money
(probably not profit though).
They have a huge, loyal following and presumably a decent size customer
base.

GB had none of this.

MySQL will probably be around a long, long time.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL

I cannot answer your question directly, but I did come across this
mysql/postgresql article this morning...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;ncid=1817&amp;e=10&amp;u=/zd/2004011
1/tc_zd/116115&sid=96120751

I'm sure it's already been posted to the list.

-jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Powell [mailto:Bob@hotchkiss.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:32 AM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: [GENERAL] Postgress and MYSQL

To whom it may concern:

I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. I continue to see
articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for development an
open_source web database.

Why isn't PostgreSQL being considered or talked about by major industry
giants? As a DBA I know that Postgres is far superior to MYSQL but if
the industry directs it's energies towards open-source database this
coming year I think somehow PostgreSQL needs to be represented better.

Bob Powell

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

After a long battle with technology, Bob@hotchkiss.org ("Bob Powell"), an earthling, wrote:

To whom it may concern:

I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. I continue to see
articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for development an
open_source web database.

Why isn't PostgreSQL being considered or talked about by major industry
giants? As a DBA I know that Postgres is far superior to MYSQL but if
the industry directs it's energies towards open-source database this
coming year I think somehow PostgreSQL needs to be represented better.

For IBM, in particular, it would be hugely counterproductive to point
people to something that might take away from the sales of their own
products. After all, they bought Informix and Universe, and developed
DB/2. There's presumably some money in the latter.

Furthermore, there's presumably some money in getting people to adopt
a product that has rudimentary support for what they need, and then,
when scalability proves troublesome, migrate them to DB/2.

Mind you, as the recent changes to the licensing and marketing of
MySQL AB get better known, it is also possible that IBM would
(correctly) perceive them as competition (irrespective of technical
merits), and either demand money for promoting the product, or cease
promoting it.
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne&gt; rate me
http://cbbrowne.com/info/nonrdbms.html
"very few people approach me in real life and insist on proving they
are drooling idiots." -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp

Hello Bob!
Everybody knows that PostgreSQL is better than MySQL and supports more
features etc. But remember - the main issue of database systems now is
web that is being build mainly by students that do not even know what
database engines are made for. At least here (My second job is
Instructor in Unix/Linux/etc.) and i know that the main thing that is
required by students is Linux with apache and MySQL. And the strange
thing - students are always starting learning from Network
Administration or Linux in Enterprise course, but real administrators
who is working with systems for 10-15 years are starting from
Introduction into unix systems.
Here in Russia almost all web design companies using MySQL, on all
hosting systems owners asking to install MySQL for their users etc.
MySQL is everywhere.
So, who will work with PG? Only people registered here :)) Maybe a few
more. So it is normal that MySQL beats PG on the market.
I have Oracle, PostgreSQL servers, used to work with DB2 on AS/400 and
personaly i know that PG is better than MySQL. But who will tell it to
students who saw a computer twice and already think that they are
administrators? :))))
Please do not kill me for this post - i like PG and working with
PG and developing for PG, i was talking just about what happening
around. To make PG known there should be more and more products that
relay on PG. And this should be not Banking or other mission critical
projects. It should be a simple forums, picture bases i do not know
what but the things that should be installable for 3 minutes and
working for years. Otherwise if PG is positioning itself as a DB
system for huge and mission critical tasks - nobody here should think
about MySQL that was simple and will be simple when PG is being
installed for tasks where MySQL will never work and nobody will ever
think it will.

Regards,
Anton

BP> To whom it may concern:

BP> I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
BP> disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. I continue to see
BP> articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for development an
BP> open_source web database.

BP> Why isn't PostgreSQL being considered or talked about by major industry
BP> giants? As a DBA I know that Postgres is far superior to MYSQL but if
BP> the industry directs it's energies towards open-source database this
BP> coming year I think somehow PostgreSQL needs to be represented better.

BP> Bob Powell

BP> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
BP> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
BP> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
BP> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

On Jan 14, 2004, at 0:08, Anton.Nikiforov@loteco.ru wrote:

around. To make PG known there should be more and more products that
relay on PG. And this should be not Banking or other mission critical
projects. It should be a simple forums, picture bases i do not know

This is very insightful. mySQL is not popular in the enterprise
because it's known to solve big problems, but because it's known to
solve little ones. It seems so wrong, but makes so much sense.

--
Dustin Sallings

I have to agree. In my experience the average database user out there does not
need the entire functionality of something like Oracle. It is because of this
that I have used MySQL for many years now.

In this light (please accept my confession as to being a more prolific MySQL
user), I am becoming more converted to Postgress. I am very impressed with the
full features of PG, but I have noticed some things that will make PG more
useful out of the box.

1. Replication: Like it or not most people regard their data and access to their
data as 'invaluable'. If not, why are they storing it. Having a secondary
server (read slaves) on which you can perform backups, load balance RO traffic,
and eventually use as a failover has been one of the great selling points of
MySQL for my specific applications. I wish there were a Master-Master
replication scheme out there, but that is not the case.

2. Documentation: In delving deeper into the Postgress database I have tried to
find whatever I can to learn more. I have found an Oreilly book out there, but
the TOC reads almost the exact same as the online documentation. I ask myself -
have they lifted the documentation and are now trying to sell me it bound in
book form? MySQL did the same for a while, but it was the other books- problem
solving, examples, programming, etc.. that really helped MySQL adoption IMO.

MySQL marketing has done much to help the average database user out there feel
like they are getting a powerful and feature-rich database. The average user
out there is doing nothing more than address books and recipe books. They,
however, __THINK__ they are real DBA's because MySQL is happy to lead them to
believe that. Having them evangelize the database is like gold. There is no
barrier-to-entry (read cash!!!) to MySQL (or Postgress for that matter) that
requires business case analysis and hiring of trained professionals to run the
database.

I see a trend of "DBA's", "Network Admin's", "** Admins'"(fill in blank) out
there that lack a fundamental understanding of how a computer works and how you
make it work for you, not the other way around. I scoff at most training
centers that sit you in front of a terminal (maintained by them) and teach you
everything you need to know in 20 days for $1200. They lack the understanding
of how I/O works, CPU & caching, ... They know one thing, but they __THINK__
they are the master.

I have ranted about this for a point. It is not what the seasoned 20 year UNIX
veteran knows about a database/OS that really matters in terms of adoption - it
is what the general mass of people __THINKS__ matters. They are becoming ever
present in high levels of decision making functions. Perception is the key.

My $0.02.

Quoting Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>:

Matt Davies wrote:

2. Documentation: In delving deeper into the Postgress database I
have tried to find whatever I can to learn more. I have found an
Oreilly book out there, but the TOC reads almost the exact same as
the online documentation. I ask myself - have they lifted the
documentation and are now trying to sell me it bound in book form?
MySQL did the same for a while, but it was the other books- problem
solving, examples, programming, etc.. that really helped MySQL
adoption IMO.

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/books.html

1. Replication: Like it or not most people regard their data and access to their
data as 'invaluable'. If not, why are they storing it. Having a secondary
server (read slaves) on which you can perform backups, load balance RO traffic,
and eventually use as a failover has been one of the great selling points of
MySQL for my specific applications. I wish there were a Master-Master
replication scheme out there, but that is not the case.

Replication exists in multiple manners for PostgreSQL. There is Mammoth
replicator (our product),
ErServer (pgsql.com's product), dbmirror, Rserv, and pgCluster.

2. Documentation: In delving deeper into the Postgress database I have tried to
find whatever I can to learn more. I have found an Oreilly book out there, but
the TOC reads almost the exact same as the online documentation. I ask myself -
have they lifted the documentation and are now trying to sell me it bound in
book form?

I am sorry but I am the co-author of that book and I can tell you the
only thing in that
book that reads like the documentation is the reference chapter and the
appendixes.
Not to mention that PostgreSQL.Org has some of the most complete
documentation
of any software out there.

There are also several books on PostgreSQL including the O'Reilly one,
the Addison
Wesley one, the Sams one... and I think even a PTR one.

MySQL marketing has done much to help the average database user out there feel
like they are getting a powerful and feature-rich database. The average user
out there is doing nothing more than address books and recipe books. They,

MySQL has what 19 million in the bank?

I have ranted about this for a point. It is not what the seasoned 20 year UNIX
veteran knows about a database/OS that really matters in terms of adoption - it
is what the general mass of people __THINKS__ matters. They are becoming ever
present in high levels of decision making functions. Perception is the key.

This is very true. Perception is the key.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

My $0.02.

Quoting Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>:

On Jan 14, 2004, at 0:08, Anton.Nikiforov@loteco.ru wrote:

around. To make PG known there should be more and more products that
relay on PG. And this should be not Banking or other mission critical
projects. It should be a simple forums, picture bases i do not know

This is very insightful. mySQL is not popular in the enterprise
because it's known to solve big problems, but because it's known to
solve little ones. It seems so wrong, but makes so much sense.

--
Dustin Sallings

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

Not to mention that PostgreSQL.Org has some of the most complete
documentation
of any software out there.

Yes, I don't understand why people seem to keep complaining about
Postgres' documentation - it is by far the best reference documentation
I've ever come across.

Maybe it's that there isn't much tutorial content in the documentation -
for somebody trying to learn how to do SQL in the first place, it's not
going to hold your hand and I could see how that will turn off newbies.

On Jan 14, 2004, at 10:18, Matt Davies wrote:

1. Replication: Like it or not most people regard their data and
access to their
data as 'invaluable'. If not, why are they storing it. Having a
secondary

I'm not the only person who has used this same argument against mySQL
installs. There is a huge understanding problem here. Sure, so you're
replicating your data...that doesn't mean you're storing what you think
you're storing, or transactionally safe, or consistent, etc...

server (read slaves) on which you can perform backups, load balance RO
traffic,
and eventually use as a failover has been one of the great selling
points of
MySQL for my specific applications. I wish there were a Master-Master
replication scheme out there, but that is not the case.

You don't need a replicate to perform a backup in general. mySQL
imposed this requirement, but a replicate shouldn't be used that way.
Load balancing, perhaps...failover, maybe.

In my experience with really good replication systems (sybase's rep
server), we didn't really use replication this way. We had a replicate
going to a DSS system which was indexed and used differently, and we
had a replicate going to a ``warm'' standby which we would use for some
read-only queries. Its original purpose was to use as a failover
system, but it was rarely used this way, even when there were
catastrophic database problems. The reason is simple. If something
broke the DB, it would be plain irresponsible to swap out the DB server
for another one that is (as far as we know) just as likely to break for
the same reason leaving us stranded. Breaking replication required
rematerialization of the master after brining it back online, which was
an expensive process that left us without a spare for several hours.
So it was the DBAs' job to spend some time during any database failure
to determine the cause and solution. Occasionally that meant swapping
to the other DB, but that process was never automated (well, no more
than being a script a DBA would run whenever he determined it
necessary).

--
Dustin Sallings

Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>:

Replication exists in multiple manners for PostgreSQL. There is Mammoth
replicator (our product),
ErServer (pgsql.com's product), dbmirror, Rserv, and pgCluster.

What I meant was integrated replication. When adding more layers to the database
there is yet one more possible mechanism for failure at some point. I don't
know about you, but Murphy always bites me in the butt. In addition, I found
your product VERY interesting, but it kinda puts me off that it is starting at
$1000. PG is free, MySQL is not (for my purposes) and costs ~$500 with
everything in one tried and true package.

MySQL has what 19 million in the bank?

I only point out what the userbase is feeling. I have never been attacked as an
idiot when using MySQL - I have always had helpful responses instead of "RTFM"
as I have seen and experienced here (and with qmail). To many people starting
the decision making process one looks at the type of support and how the group
makes you feel. You don't risk the company or project on potential hostility.

This is very true. Perception is the key.

Again, I point out, PERCEPTION is the key. This can be done regardless of the
cash stash in the bank.

Quoting Ben <bench@silentmedia.com>:

Yes, I don't understand why people seem to keep complaining about
Postgres' documentation - it is by far the best reference documentation
I've ever come across.

Maybe it's that there isn't much tutorial content in the documentation -
for somebody trying to learn how to do SQL in the first place, it's not
going to hold your hand and I could see how that will turn off newbies.

I agree - it is very clear and complete. I do think that tutorials will help.
Tutorials being -
1. Basic SQL (one must understand that if you want your product to go forward
you have to teach some basic fundamentals - again no barrier to entry =
(usually) no formal training)

2. General Tutorials (see above)

3. Advanced Usage Tutorials (see above, again)

Acceptance of PG could be greatly accelerated by more:
1. small projects using PG as a backend (as stated in previous thread post)
2. documenation coming from multiple sources. Don't ask me to explain why, but
one seems to equate robustness, usability, etc... with the more titles one
sees. If you go to Barnes and Noble's and look there for DB books you see the
wall of red (Oracle books), black (M$oft), blue (MySQL). I simply point out
that perception being as it is - PG is not there. I am trying to learn more and
more about it to remedy my newcomer understanding of PG. Do not read this as if
I am a newbie to DB's; I am not ignorant.

I talk of perception - if you get PG into the hands of more newbies and make
them feel good you have a viral marketing strategy that costs you no $. I fell
for it years ago with MySQL, but I have since learned. Now that I have Oracle
experience as a reference I see MySQL as lacking and trying to hoodwink me.
Most never make it out of the cloud.

""Bob Powell"" <Bob@hotchkiss.org> wrote in message
news:s003d760.005@grpwise.hotchkiss.org...

To whom it may concern:

I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. I continue to see
articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for development an
open_source web database.

Why isn't PostgreSQL being considered or talked about by major industry
giants? As a DBA I know that Postgres is far superior to MYSQL but if
the industry directs it's energies towards open-source database this
coming year I think somehow PostgreSQL needs to be represented better.

Hear, hear!

Almost all the replies are about technical superiority. But, as we have all
seen dozens of times over, marketing trumps technology in the marketplace.

So the only "fix" is to find vocal, clear and market-savvy evangelist(s) for
Postgres. Doesn't even need to be technically savvy (probably helps if the
person isn't).

== Ezra Epostein.

A good clean replication system is not available for bsd platforms as far as
I can tell, which is the preferred OS of choice for many PG installations.
I am playing around with Erserver, but the download has to be updated from
cvs or it won't even compile (corrupted file in the distribution). It
appears to me at first glance that it is not actively being worked on,
although it may indeed work (I haven't had a chance to fully configure/test
it yet on freebsd 5).

The Erserver I downloaded is free, although I was confused also because I
found that same page that said it was $1000. I'm still not sure if the
erserver I downloaded is the only version, or if there is a commercial
version?

Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Davies" <matt@mattdavies.net>
To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postgress and MYSQL

Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>:

Replication exists in multiple manners for PostgreSQL. There is Mammoth
replicator (our product),
ErServer (pgsql.com's product), dbmirror, Rserv, and pgCluster.

What I meant was integrated replication. When adding more layers to the

database

there is yet one more possible mechanism for failure at some point. I

don't

know about you, but Murphy always bites me in the butt. In addition, I

found

your product VERY interesting, but it kinda puts me off that it is

starting at

$1000. PG is free, MySQL is not (for my purposes) and costs ~$500 with
everything in one tried and true package.

MySQL has what 19 million in the bank?

I only point out what the userbase is feeling. I have never been attacked

as an

idiot when using MySQL - I have always had helpful responses instead of

"RTFM"

as I have seen and experienced here (and with qmail). To many people

starting

the decision making process one looks at the type of support and how the

group

makes you feel. You don't risk the company or project on potential

hostility.

This is very true. Perception is the key.

Again, I point out, PERCEPTION is the key. This can be done regardless of

the

Mensaje citado por Ben <bench@silentmedia.com>:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

Not to mention that PostgreSQL.Org has some of the most complete
documentation
of any software out there.

Yes, I don't understand why people seem to keep complaining about
Postgres' documentation - it is by far the best reference documentation
I've ever come across.

Not really. I just tried to look in the docs for the explicit for of a CAST
(really trying to find the link to send someone), and I just couldn't find it.
I know it's somewhere there, as I have read it before, but not even the search
engine installed in the interactive docs seem to find that doc.

Personally I think the docs are great (I learned a lot from them), but some
things are not that easy to find, even with a search engine. Compared to MySQL
online docs, PG's docs are heaven!!! :-)

--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
---------------------------------------------------------
Mart�n Marqu�s | Programador, DBA
Centro de Telem�tica | Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
---------------------------------------------------------