[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Getting started with Postgres or MySQL

On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 20:37 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On 02/01/07 20:10, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> > Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:16:18PM -0500, Angelo Bertolli wrote:
> >>   
> >>> (2) MySQL is a shorter learning curve for new users
> >>>
> >>>     
> >> What?  In what way?  Learning to develop against MySQL is no harder or
> >> easier than learning to develop against PostgreSQL (besides the fact the
> >> people need to be broken of the stupid misconceptions engendered by the
> >> pervasveness of MySQL).  The two are just different.
> >>   
> > 
> > Mostly in letting people do rapid development without requiring a lot of
> > forethought in database design.  I know, I know, my argument is a lot
> That splatting noise is my hurl splatting onto the opposite wall.
> Remind me never to hire you.

Was that 3rd normal form?

> > weaker these days with improvements made to Postgres.  Legacy counts too
> > in this case because when there is a big MySQL userbase out there that
> > means more support.  But, as you said before, that's not a technical merit.
> Are you sure you don't work for Microsoft?  Or maybe you're an MCSE?

Nah they use 31st normal form.

> [snip]
> > It doesn't.  Your point (and Ron's) about teaching people bad design
> > techniques and bad habits is well-taken.  MySQL does not enforce good
> > habits.  And if you have good habits or know how to design a database
> > well, then using those techniques actually makes your life easier.
> > 
> > But you're coming from an angle where people know or must learn all of
> > that just before they're able to even start.  Don't you see how not
> > having to learn that is faster for some people?
> It's confirmed.  You *are* an MCSE.

nulleth normal form! Of course, lets name a table "field" and in table
"field" name a field "table".

Believe it or not, I've SEEN that. Trying to get someone who did the DB
design *WHY* it isn't good to use a reserved name for an object... or
how about a field called "count" being used as "record-no" except when
it had a duplicate... then the field "sub-count" was used.

Yeah, systems designed during "programming classes" should NOT go into
production... *EVAR*!!!!1!11!

I also asked how they got the DB to accept the names... they forced it
with the exceptions rules to de-reserve reserved names and then renamed
the reserved name.

Hell, I didn't think you could force that. But think of the maintainers
behind the implementers. Imagine the surprise when they looked at the
SQL and saw the normal reserved words in the wrong places, and things in
the reserved word positions being something else?

Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's
Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive
product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at
the playfield. -- Thane Walkup

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: