Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 01:19:03PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> > pretty wide feature set (as good as any other open source rdbms afaik)
> > plus it's open source, so if we don't have a feature that say oracle has,
> > you can pay someone the $10,000+ the oracle license will
On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, [ISO-8859-1] Hans-J$B|(Brgen Sch$Bv(Bnig wrote:
(B
(B> >+ people measure postgresql by the speed of bulk imports
(B>
(B> This is a good point. I can complete agree. What we might need is
(B> something called "SQL Loader" or so. This may sound funny and it doesn't
(B>
Gavin Sherry wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I wonder why people ask for better documentation. I think the
documentation is really good. Ever read Oracle stuff? *ugh*.
Ever read MySQL docs - *hack*!!
The documentation definately needs work -- particularly client
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > I wonder why people ask for better documentation. I think the
> > documentation is really good. Ever read Oracle stuff? *ugh*.
>
> Ever read MySQL docs - *hack*!!
The documentation definately needs work -- particularly client
library docum
Michael Meskes wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 01:19:03PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
pretty wide feature set (as good as any other open source rdbms afaik)
plus it's open source, so if we don't have a feature that say oracle has,
you can pay someone the $10,000+ the oracle license will cost to im
> I wonder why people ask for better documentation. I think the
> documentation is really good. Ever read Oracle stuff? *ugh*.
Ever read MySQL docs - *hack*!!
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an
Tom Lane wrote:
Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave Page put up a new survey on the PostgreSQL portal page very
recently, " What would attract the most new PostgreSQL users?" and the
results in already are interesting (1,529 results as this is being written):
[snip]
Now, we don't nec
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately it doesn't always work this way. I knew one government
> organization that decided to go for Oracle for 500K Euro instead of
> adding the missing features (actually almost exclusively PITR). One of
> the top arguments I heard was: "I don't
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 01:19:03PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> pretty wide feature set (as good as any other open source rdbms afaik)
> plus it's open source, so if we don't have a feature that say oracle has,
> you can pay someone the $10,000+ the oracle license will cost to implement
> it. I've
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 19 January 2003 14:47
> To: PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Survey results from the PostgreSQL portal page
>
>
>
> On Sunday 19 January 2003 09:20, Justin Clift wrote:
>> Dave Page put up a new survey on the PostgreSQL portal page very
>> recently, " What would attract the most new PostgreSQL users?" and the
>> results in already are interesting (1,529 results as this is being
>> written):
>> ***
>>
>
> I wonder why people ask for better documentation. I think the
> documentation is really good. Ever read Oracle stuff? *ugh*.
They want examples of real-world usage. The commands themselves have
good 'HOW TO' notes, and an explanation of what they are, but we don't
really have anything on 'WHY?
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 09:43:03AM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> What I find interesting is that 25% voted for replication and only 1/2% voted
> for PITR. I think that that shows that surveys are easily skewed by their
> own parameters. People interested in both probably just voted for the o
Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dave Page put up a new survey on the PostgreSQL portal page very
> recently, " What would attract the most new PostgreSQL users?" and the
> results in already are interesting (1,529 results as this is being written):
> [snip]
> Now, we don't necessarily
+ people measure postgresql by the speed of bulk imports
This is a good point. I can complete agree. What we might need is
something called "SQL Loader" or so. This may sound funny and it doesn't
make technical sense but it is an OBVIOUS way of importing data. People
often forget to use tr
On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 14:20, Justin Clift wrote:
> Dave Page put up a new survey on the PostgreSQL portal page very
> recently, " What would attract the most new PostgreSQL users?"
...
> Other interesting conclusions can be drawn from the results too, one of
> which is that only about 2% of peop
On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 15:20, Justin Clift wrote:
>
> Now, we don't necessarily have a speed problem, as people who take the
> time to tune the database can attest to, so this is making me consider
> why such a large percentage of folk would vote for that.
>
> The possibilities that come to min
On Sunday 19 January 2003 09:20, Justin Clift wrote:
> Dave Page put up a new survey on the PostgreSQL portal page very
> recently, " What would attract the most new PostgreSQL users?" and the
> results in already are interesting (1,529 results as this is being
> written):
>
> http://www.postgresql
Hi everyone,
Dave Page put up a new survey on the PostgreSQL portal page very
recently, " What would attract the most new PostgreSQL users?" and the
results in already are interesting (1,529 results as this is being written):
http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?SurveyID=9
Listed from most vot
19 matches
Mail list logo
