Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Something I have done at little cost was to submit a request for a few
books on
PostgreSQL to my local library and I check them out once in while and
see that
others are also checking them out.....

I agree with poor level of documentation....the skeleton is
there....perhpas we could
have some volunteers write up some parts (or add more....)...

Kevin Brown wrote:

>Devrim G?ND?Z wrote:
>
>
>>I do NOT like hearing about MySQL in this (these) list(s).
>>
>>PostgreSQL is not in the same category with MySQL. MySQL is for
>>*dummies*, not database admins. I do not even call it a database. I
>>have never forgotten my data loss 2,5 years ago; when I used MySQL for
>>just 2 months!!!
>>
>>
>
>I think you're on to something here, but it's obscured by the way you
>said it.
>
>There's no question in my mind that PostgreSQL is superior in almost
>every way to MySQL. For those of us who are technically minded, it
>boggles the mind that people would choose MySQL over PostgreSQL. Yet
>they do. And it's important to understand why.
>
>Simply saying "MySQL has better marketing" isn't enough. It's too
>simple an answer and obscures some issues that should probably be
>addressed.
>
>People use MySQL because it's very easy to set up, relatively easy to
>maintain (when something doesn't go wrong, that is), is very well
>documented and supported, and is initially adequate for the task they
>have in mind (that the task may change significantly such that MySQL
>is no longer adequate is something only those with experience will
>consider).
>
>PostgreSQL has come a long way and, with the exception of a few minor
>things (the need to VACUUM, for instance. The current version makes
>the VACUUM requirement almost a non-issue as regards performance and
>availability, but it really should be something that the database
>takes care of itself), is equivalent to MySQL in the above things
>except for documentation and support.
>
>MySQL's documentation is very, very good. My experience with it is
>that it's possible, and relatively easy, to find information about
>almost anything you might need to know.
>
>PostgreSQL's documentation is good, but not quite as good as MySQL's.
>It's not quite as complete. For instance, I didn't find any
>documentation at all in the User's Guide or Administrator's Guide on
>creating tables (if I missed it, then that might illustrate that the
>documentation needs to be organized slightly differently). I did find
>a little in the tutorial (about the amount that you'd want in a
>tutorial), but to find out more I had to go to the SQL statement
>reference (in my case I was looking for the means by which one could
>create a constraint on a column during table creation time).
>
>The reason this is important is that the documentation is *the* way
>people are going to learn the database. If it's too sparse or too
>disorganized, people who don't have a lot of time to spend searching
>through the documentation for something may well decide that a
>different product (such as MySQL) would suit their needs better.
>
>The documentation for PostgreSQL improves all the time, largely in
>response to comments such as this one, and that's a very good thing.
>My purpose in bringing this up is to show you what PostgreSQL is up
>against in terms of widespread adoption.
>
>
>
>>If we want to "sell" PostgreSQL, we should talk about, maybe, Oracle.
>>I have never took care of MySQL said. I just know that I'm running
>>PostgreSQL since 2,5 years and I only stopped it "JUST" before upgrades
>>of PostgreSQL. It's just *working*; which is unfamiliar to MySQL
>>users.
>>
>>
>
>The experience people have with MySQL varies a lot, and much of it has
>to do with the load people put on it. If MySQL were consistently bad
>and unreliable it would have a much smaller following (since it's not
>in a monopoly position the way Microsoft is).
>
>But you're mistaken if you believe that MySQL isn't competition for
>PostgreSQL. It is, because it serves the same purpose: a means of
>storing information in an easily retrievable way.
>
>Selling potential MySQL users on PostgreSQL should be easier than
>doing the same for Oracle users because potential MySQL users have at
>least already decided that a free database is worthy of consideration.
>As their needs grow beyond what MySQL offers, they'll look for a more
>capable database engine. It's a target market that we'd be idiots to
>ignore, and we do so at our peril (the more people out there using
>MySQL, the fewer there are using PostgreSQL).
>
>
>
>>I'm a Linux user. I'm happy that PostgreSQL does not have win32 version.
>>If someone wants to use a real database server, then they should install
>>Linux (or *bsd,etc). This is what Oracle offers,too. Native Windows
>>support will cause some problems; such as some dummy windows users will
>>begin using it. I do not believe that PostgreSQL needs native windowz
>>support.
>>
>>
>
>I hate to break it to you (assuming that I didn't misunderstand what
>you said), but Oracle offers a native Windows port of their database
>engine, and has done so for some time. It's *stupid* to ignore the
>native Windows market. There are a lot of people who need a database
>engine to store their data and who would benefit from a native Windows
>implementation of PostgreSQL, but aren't interested in the additional
>burden of setting up a Linux server because they lack the money, time,
>or expertise.
>
>
>
>>So, hackers (I'm not a hacker) should decide whether PostgreSQL should
>>be used widely in real database apps, or it should be used even by dummy
>>users?
>>
>>
>
>What makes you think we can't meet the needs of both groups? The
>capabilities of PostgreSQL are (with very few exceptions) a superset
>of MySQL's, which means that wherever someone deploys a MySQL server,
>they could probably have deployed a PostgreSQL server in its place.
>It should be an easy sell: they get a database engine that is
>significantly more capable than MySQL for the same low price!
>
>Selling to the Oracle market is going to be harder. The capabilities
>of Oracle are a superset of those of PostgreSQL. Shops which plan to
>deploy a database server and who need the capabilities of PostgreSQL
>at a minimum are going to look at Oracle for the same reason that
>shops which at a minimum need the capabilities of MySQL would be smart
>to look at PostgreSQL: their needs may grow over time and changing the
>database mid-project is difficult and time-consuming. The difference
>is that the prices of MySQL and PostgreSQL are the same, while the
>prices of PostgreSQL and Oracle are vastly different.
>
>That's not to say that going after the Oracle market shouldn't be done
>(quite the opposite, provided it's done honestly), only that *not*
>going after the MySQL market is folly.
>
>
>
>