Re: Is my MySQL Gaining ?

"Ericson Smith" <eric(at)did-it(dot)com> Wrote:

> A documentation system like the one over at http://php.net, would be
> fantastic for Postgresql. There could be lookups based on SQL commands,
> Functions, and Sitewide Searches. This alone would go a long way to
> expose PHP to "the masses".
>
Here is the problem, IMO. PHP has a very well developed documentation
system which already closely parallels the PostgreSQL docs-- i.e. light
tutorial, with more advanced manual sections, etc. In fact, the PostgreSQL
documentation has more depth and is more comprehensive than the PHP manual
(which is broad and shallow)..

However, a language like PHP is very different from an enterprise DB, so our
tutorial really doesn't help a newbie to databases understand how to USE
PostgreSQL. In order to do this, it would need to cover a bunch of other
topics as well, such as normalization, etc. The result would be something
that you probably would not want to include in your standard reference
manual.

In other threads, I have been vocal on the need for a community-maintained
PostgreSQL curriculum separate from the official PostgreSQL docs. I
honestly think that this need would be well addressed by such a curriculum.
The closest thing that is available at the moment, IMO, is Bruce Momjian's
book.

> In terms of using MySQL or Postgresql, lets all face it, most data
> storage work could be easily and efficiently handled by text files,
> since there needs to be just infrequent inserts and updates, and mostly
> reads. The majority of interfaces exposed on the web follow this
> paradigm, and include:
> * Content management
> * Catalogs
> * Shopping cart stuff
> * User management
>
True, until you need transactional control. Then text files break down very
fast.

> Yes, our powerful and easy to use PG can do all of that too, but SQLite,
> Sleepycat DBM files and MySQL can do it as well. There are going to be
> even more migrations for Oracle to MySQL than from Oracle to PG, because
> so many of those Oracle installations were overkill in the first place.

Perhaps, except that Oracle DBA's may find PostgreSQL more to their liking
than MySQL.

> Getting mindshare is a different problem. That requires PG to have a
> full time effective press person. This press person would need to be in
> touch with the press constantly to tell them things like:
> * PG is a great back for windows clients using ODBC/MS Access/Excel
> * PG is a "real" database comparable to Oracle
> * PG costs nothing
> * Free support is fabulous, and paid support is available
> * Development is constant

And this need is not filled by the Advocacy group how? If we were to do as
you propose, who would pay that person?

> In the end, I believe that PG needs to move into an organizational
> structure so that its considerable assets can be fully realized, its
> wonderful developers may be fully compensated, and commercial users (our
> bread and butter), can have an official place to help sponsor features
> of the system and so on. All this is more than a website. Someone posted
> pictures of the PG booth at a show recently. It was nice, but there was
> this one sad guy shrouded in darkness -- I felt depressed, because
> that's how PG advocacy felt.

I am not opposed to the idea of a non-profit organization similar to those
that run Apache, XFree86, etc. I think it would take some work to do, and
there may need to be some debate to iron out how this would work. But I am
not sure that it is the only or even the best way.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers