Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Democracy and organisation : let's make a

From: Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Democracy and organisation : let's make a
Date: 2002-06-26 02:41:06
Message-ID: Pine.NEB.4.43.0206261126080.670-100000@angelic.cynic.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Ok, a few comments on various messages that have appeared in this thread.

> From: James Hubbard <jhubbard(at)mcs(dot)uvawise(dot)edu>
>
> I wasn't really comparing to MySQL here. I meant, in relationship
> to MS Access. Start it up and it just works.

Yeah, a point-and-drool installation wizard for postgres under windows
would be great. I think, from looking at PGAdminII, that we've already
got great admin tools; it seems just as good as SQL Server Enterprise
Manager to me.

> I think that would work pretty well. A basic configuration that
> locks eveything down with the goal of a single user desktop setting,
> but also provides the user with the capability of opening things up
> so that it could function as a multiuser system.

I don't understand this. What's the difference between a "single
user desktop setting" and a low-end multi-user system? I don't see
what would change.

If you're talking more than a twenty or thirty active connections and
a couple of gig of data, yeah, then you need to change stuff. But then
you need a real admin and some planning, and no point-and-click tool is
going to help with that.

> Keep in mind that I was primarily focusing on the potential to include
> it with something like OpenOffice. This is why I said that my post was
> a little far fetched.

That sounds like a great idea to me.

> From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
>
> I could personally care less if postgresql ever runs as a native window
> application, since I personally don't believe windows is a suitable OS for
> hosting a dbms.

Well, windows is fine for hosting a DBMS if you're talking about the
facilities the OS offers a DBMS, and effeciency. Administrating windows
boxes sucks, but cygwin can help fix that. (Not that I'd care to go back
to a database running under Windows, but it is practical, if unpleasant.)

> Postgresql is quite portable, when one is porting it to OSes that
> aren't windows, like VMS, MVS, or all the different flavors of Unix.

I'm not sure what's up with this. Windows does offer POSIX compatability,
after all.

> From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
>
> > Maybe a PostgreSQL-Lite would be a better idea.  One that condenses the main
> > code down to something easy, that a desktop user could use, but maintain the
> > strength of the core code.  I suppose that means creating another project.
>
> Personally, I think it's a redundant idea.   There are a couple dozen
> "lightweight" RDBMSs available off Sourceforge.   There is only one
> "Heavy-duty" database:  Us.

And what on earth is the advantage of "PostgreSQL Lite"? I don't see how
it would be easier to use in any way. The install dificulties could be
worked around with an install wizard, and PGAdminII seems already to be
a good admin interface.

> I also shot down PostgreSQL as a possibility for inclusion with
> OpenOffice.org, since Postgres is quite firmly a *server* database, and 70%
> of OpenOffice.org installs are on Windows 95/98.

Again, I don't see the problem. Server, schmerver; there's nothing wrong
with running postgres for "non-server" tasks. Unless it's completely
impossible to port to Win98, but is that really the case?

> From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
>
> On the other hand, we already outstrip MS SQL Server's feature set,
> as well as being more reliable, lower-maintainence, multi-platform,
> and cheaper. Frankly, the only thing that MS SQL has over us is
> easy-but-unreliable GUI admin tools (backup, user, and database
> management).

Uh..."no way." I've found MS SQL Server is consistently faster when it
comes to the crunch, due to things like writing a heck of a lot less
to the log files, significantly less table overhead, having clustered
indexes, and so on. (Probably more efficient buffer management also
helps a bit.) Other areas where postgres can't compare is backup and
restore, ability to do transaction log shipping, replication, access
rights, disk allocation (i.e., being able to determine on which disk
you're going to put a given table), and so on. SQL Server's optimizer
also seems to me to be better, though I could be wrong there.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org
    Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light.  --XTC




In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Matthew T. O'ConnorDate: 2002-06-26 03:15:41
Subject: Re: Democracy and organisation : let's make a revolution
Previous:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2002-06-26 02:39:00
Subject: Using virtual_host setting in postmaster.conf file ...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group