Re: Are we losing momentum?

On Wednesday 16 April 2003 00:26, Mike Benoit wrote:
> From my experience, almost every time I talk to a MySQL supporter about
> PostgreSQL, the whole "vacuum" issue always seems to come up. Some way
> to get vacuum automated (and thus out of sight, out of mind) I think
> would make great strides in making PG at least "seem" more friendly to
> someone on the outside.

Agreed. But that is not an impossible issue for a DBA, is it? I mean some
learning is required but that can be done.

> Creating users/databases/changing passwords is as simple as sending it a
> couple queries from our Customer web interface, trouble shooting poor
> queries takes seconds when using "mytop" (mtop), and tracking/billing
> for disk usage is as simple as running "du /var/lib/mysql/*". I would
> like to say the same things for PG, but I'm affrid I can't.

Adding users, databases, password changes are as easy in postgresql. Tracking
disk usage is no different in postgresql barring additional step of using
oid2name to find out directory you want to du.

In fact I think postgresql is easier to use. Till date, I could never start
mysql by hand and get it behave sanely. pg_ctl or nohup postmaster has always
worked for me.

Besides postgresql is true to it's resource usage. You allocate 128MB of
shared buffers, and they are consumed. You stop postmaster and all the
buffers are back to system. With mysql, I found that large amount of memory
was never returned to system even after service shutdown. I hate black-boxes
on my system where I can not fathom into. Had to reboot the machine.

> I think it all comes down to how simple PG is to setup and use on a
> daily basis. This is what determines the size of its community. Even
> just the simple things make a big difference. ie:
>
> \dt
>
> compared to:
>
> show tables;

<I assume that show tables is not a standard SQL syntax>

That is very shallow view. \dt is a postgresql terminal client extension where
as show tables is part of mysql SQL offerings. Such brutal twisting of SQL
standards encourages dependence on mysql only features, flushing standard
compliance down the drain.

> Yes, once you get over the "hump" PG is quite efficient, but you need to
> understand it, and learn some small quriks first. With MySQL, you can
> pretty much guess commands, and they often work! Not as much luck with
> PG.
>
> show indexes
> show processlist
> show columns from <table>
>
> These are all easy/simple commands that make sense to someone who is
> just learning the ropes. Short abbreviated, commands are great for the
> experts, but can greatly discourage newbies.

Well, I might get flamed for this but let me clarify. I am not against
newbies. Everybody once was a newbie. But being a newbie, does not justify
reluctance to go thr. manuals. If you are reluctant to go thr. manuals., you
better hire a commercial support.

My advise has always been ,to read postgresql manual start to end before even
touching it. It takes a day to digest but pays off big later. When I started
postgresql back in 1999, I started on postgresql and SQL simalteneously.
Didn't have faintest idea, what any of those stand for. So I read the manual,
start to end in couple of days. In one day I could do things that worked as
expected.

RTFM is not an advice thrown to kick out newbies. It is ground fact that
everybody has to suffer thr. Borg transplants are not yet available here.

Shridhar