Re: Thoughs after discussions at OSCON

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 07:34:20AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:52:29AM -0400, Rick Morris wrote:
>
> > got going for it). Thus secondly, there is the depressing observation
> > that the majority of developers haven't a clue what the relational model
> > is really good for. They want to wring every possible bit of speed out
> > of a database while piling all sorts of constraints into application
> > space. That's pretty much the norm for most open source applications I
> > have seen.
>
> At the risk of sending your depression into total free-fall, I'll
> note that many proprietary applications, including those developed
> for Oracle, suffer this problem as well. Programmers who understand
> a database-backed system are much less common than they should be.
> And you're _really_ hosed if the person doing the hiring doesn't
> understand relational systems: you end up with a whole raft of
> programmers, none of whom has had a Date with the clue stick. (Sorry
> about that, folks. It was irresistable.) To the extent that's true,
> however, those programmers also have practically no incentive to move
> from MySQL, save for licensing. And, as one of the PHP folks said to
> me for the second year in a row, "Why would I move? MySQL does what
> I need, and when I need to go bigger, I use Oracle." Apparently,
> "But Postgres is the one that's free," isn't an answer. Go know.
>
Lack of understanding of relational modelling is a big problem.
People design there databases w/application centric enforcements
which play well on mysql but violates Date's central rule about
relational databases: the integrity of the data is defined in the
database and cannot be circumvented by applications.

Learn, Educate. Learn More. Educate More.

--elein

> > without question (Any X is as good as anyone else's X). Maybe it's a
> > good idea to put out some material explaining how much difference there
> > can be in two different implementations of such a thing as
> > (views/triggers/procedures/constraints), and the pitfalls that can
> > happen because of this.
>
> Given the troubles IBM has, with all their advertising and white
> paper money, making such arguments against Oracle, I don't think that
> will be a rich seam. I agree that this is one of the things I'm
> troubled about in MySQL's case: they now can justly claim that they
> have transactions (well, most of the time), that they have a strict
> implementation of SQL (well, if you turn it on), that they have
> stored procedures (pretty much), that they support subqueries (in
> some positions) &c. For a long time, I considered MySQL an
> annoyance, because one was always having to discuss this toy in the
> same breath as Postgres. But while Pg has been busy polishing real
> industrial-grade features, MySQL has been _marketing_ themselves as
> industrial-grade. And since the people who read _Network World_, who
> are unfortunately also often the people in charge of IT procurement
> budgets, don't know the difference (and probably never will) between
> "subselects in some cases" and "subselects" (for instance), I think
> our problem is about to get harder.
>
> That isn't to say that (for instance) the 8.1 features aren't
> welcome, nor even that I don't appreciate what the difference is.
> But a year ago, I was bearish on the survival of MySQL through the
> MySQL AB funding period. I'm not any more, and I suppose that's why
> I'm made nervous.
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
> I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
> you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now.
> --J.D. Baldwin
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>