Re: [GENERAL] Is my MySQL Gaining ?

I already had in the first post I replied to,  but at the risk of 
sounding redundant, I'll say it again.

Views:  When I came to PG I didn't know what they were, saw no point to 
them (still don't) why do you need a function to provide details of a 
query when a more complicated query gives the same data?  Are they 
designed for people who don't like to type long queries?

Stored Procedures: Sounds good in principle, but in what ways can I 
benefit most (I understand this now) at the time of moving to PG, I 
couldn't see the difference between writing my code in an a Stored Proc 
or an API.

Triggers: make perfect sense now, but didn't used to when I didn't know 
what they were.

This isn't definitive list but more of a flavour of the obstacles I hit 
when I first met PG.  If I hadn't persevered (and many may not) I'd have 
ended up with a PG server full of DBs designed and built as if they were 
on a MySQL server.

Yes, the topics are covered fleetingly in the tutorial, but do such 
important topics only warrant 3 pages of text between the lot of them?  
It's great that the subjects are present, but it seems to be in more of 
a kind of "Whilst We're on the Subject of Databases" kind of passing 
comment.

Maybe I'm asking for the Moon on a Stick, but it didn't feel like I was :)

T.

Shridhar Daithankar wrote:

>On Monday 29 December 2003 15:25, Tony wrote:
>  
>
>>By that logic then, we can probably ditch the PG Tutorial altogether and
>>provide a quick ref card of PG commands and keywords, with a few pages
>>on how PG is different should be plenty.
>>
>>The bisggest problem that I faced when moving to PG was the complete
>>lack of any cetralised information source for this information.  Sure
>>there are tutorials on the web, first track them down, then convert
>>their use to PG then collate them, then make some sense of it all.
>>This is the kind of aloofness that I have mentioned previously, just
>>because it doesn't belong, doesn't mean it's not needed, and it only
>>needs to be written once.  Although I know some of the concepts and I'm
>>beginning to grock them, I'm still trying to collate enough to satisfy
>>my needs.
>>
>>Assuming yo *do* want to grow the PG community and attract people from
>>other systems, the easier the transition for them, the less likely they
>>are to look elsewhere for something that appears easier.   Easier
>>doesn't always mean easier to use, sometimes it can mean easier to get
>>to grips with.
>>    
>>
>
>*Sigh*.. You just read my first remark which you could have bypassed but 
>anyways.. 
>
>What do you think of offer I made? I was slightly disappointed to see that you 
>missed it..
>
>I am not removing my original message. Please read and let me know what do you 
>think..
>
>  
>
>>Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>For one thing, these thing do not belong to postgresql documentation.
>>>
>>>But I don't believe there is shortage of material on these topics on web
>>>and in print.
>>>
>>>However if you are refering to explaining these things, w.r.t. postgresql,
>>>I would be more than happy to churn out some extremely basic tutorials.
>>>
>>>Can you tell us what all you need? Rephrasing, if you know these(and some
>>>other) concpets by now, what all you missed while learning postgresql?
>>>
>>>It may sound like stupid question but unlearning things out of imagination
>>>is not easy...:-)
>>>      
>>>
>
> Shridhar
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>    (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>  
>