5 ms·

Although PostgreSQL is featured database enterprises still using mainly SQL Server or Oracle. http://blog.protegra.com/2012/06/22/sql-server-2012-cheaper-than-o

Although PostgreSQL is featured database enterprises still using mainly SQL Server or Oracle. http://blog.protegra.com/2012/06/22/sql-server-2012-cheaper-than-open-source-database-options/ http://blog.protegra.com/2012/06/22/sql-server-2012-cheaper-... What can we do for wider adoptation of PostgreSQL?

jerryji 14y ago
Get more billion-dollar companies to use PostgreSQL. How? Use PostgreSQL in our own startup, and build it into another billion-dollar company.
- ceyhunkazel 14y ago
  These will be web startups. Main problem for enterprises is lack of support from enterprise applications (ERP,CRM..) like SAP.
  - jaylevitt 14y ago
    Web startups can become enterprises. Today's enterprises were car factories, farms, and accountants.
jasonwatkinspdx 14y ago
What a fantastic example of false quantification and pretension to objectivity.
- AlisdairO 14y ago
  Yeesh, you're right, that's pretty bad. The assumption that the customer isn't going to need to update the database version (and thus shell out more...) in those 10 years invalidates the cost assumptions all on its own. There's legitimate reasons to buy from the big three DB providers: there's a shortage of quality DBAs for postgres, and of course there are the 5-10% of cases that actually need the features/performance of the big 3. Evaluations like this, however, do not make a good case.
- ceyhunkazel 14y ago
  We need objective comparisons to promote PostgreSQL.
  - astrodust 14y ago
    You need more than that. Comparisons and bullet points and blog posts aren't the problem here, there's already billions of those. What's needed is more "PostgreSQL for SQL Server People" type conversion material and tools to help facilitate this process. NaviCat is not an acceptable solution here. Years ago when I switched to MySQL it was because it was easy to get going, a lot of community support around the product. You have questions, you get answers almost immediately. Postgres is a much more sophisticated offering and still needs to file down a lot of the sharp edges on their toolset. The psql command line tool for one is very bewildering to the uninitiated and has two conflicting syntaxes, one for the backslash commands and one for actual queries. This is not unlike other SQL shells, but MySQL, while highly non-standard, does have the advantage of a unified interface here.
Hoff 14y ago
Wider adoption? In enterprise-scale companies? For starters, acquire the reputation for providing high-touch, enterprise-grade, enterprise-focused, enterprise-costs support, with all that entails, and preferably with a cost somewhat below what Oracle charges. Provide enterprise-friendly DBA training, certifications, and other related materials. Have your sales reps schmooze the C-level office, and the IT leadership. But adoption of databases in enterprises in general? They're loathe to change their databases, and have massive investments in their existing software and hardware processes, and their staff and training. The costs involved here are staggering. If you're looking for more organic growth (and as some of those smaller companies grow and get bigger), that'll happen. But it'll take years. Maybe some acceptance in smaller projects in enterprises, but this sort of "shadow IT" can be a guerrilla effort in an enterprise; discouraged by management.
- luriel 14y ago
  > enterprise-costs support, with all that entails, [...] Provide enterprise-friendly DBA training, certifications, and other related materials. Most of those things are basically a scam (and often also a racket). > Have your sales reps schmooze the C-level office, and the IT leadership. And there you got your answer: basically, bribery.
  - taligent 14y ago
    This is just nonsense. I work in enterprise and support/training is vital for maintaining 24/7 support coverage and ensuring that developers have the best knowledge from the vendor.
sandGorgon 14y ago
The simple answer is to make better tools. There is still no single, awesome, dedicated tool to migrate from MySQL to Postgresql. (side note: Did you know that Postgres can actually act as a replication slave for SQL Server ? ). Again, there is no official Mysql Workbench for Postgres, let alone things like SequelPro. (although a member on the Indian HN - Hackerstreet - is building one at http://pgxplorer.com/ http://pgxplorer.com/) Second - documentation as compared to other database vendors. No, this is not flamebait - by itself, it is very good and adequate. But for people used to MySQL, SQL Server - it feels...scary. Check out http://dev.mysql.com/doc/ http://dev.mysql.com/doc/ (sidenote: has docs in epub format as well) vs http://www.postgresql.org/docs/ http://www.postgresql.org/docs/
- jeltz 14y ago
  > Second - documentation as compared to other database vendors. No, this is not flamebait - by itself, it is very good and adequate. But for people used to MySQL, SQL Server - it feels...scary. What is scary about it? Genuinely curious since I started out with MySQL and then when I started using PostgreSQL thought the PostgreSQL documentation was the best ever. It probably is a matter of preference, but I am curios what is scary. EDIT: As for your two links the MySQL page is way scarier.. So many options, so many links.
- fdr 14y ago
  I basically agree with you, except in regard to documentation, of which I find exceptional in PostgreSQL, even compared to other database systems. Your toplevel comparison of the index of both manuals is not very informative to me. What do you feel is missing from PostgreSQL's manual that you find in other documentation sources?
  - sandGorgon 14y ago
    I think it is hard for me to explain, because actually -> I <- prefer the Postgres documentation. However, I realized that was because it is fundamentally a man page. For someone who is exploring Postgres, or for someone who comes from other databases, it is way too abridged. A simple example is the getting started part http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/creating-database.html http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/creating-database.htm... vs http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/interactive/tutorial-createdb.html http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/interactive/tutorial-crea... Notice that Postgres has switched to using system commands like "createdb" while mysql sticks to SQL - there is a perfectly viable way to do this in Postgres using SQL, but perhaps the author didnt want to go directly to explaining template databases (which is simpler IMHO). Go and ask someone who is new to both Mysql and Postgres to read these sections. Based on the distro they are on, you have completely lost them between the complexities of the OS vs the database Here is an example of the kind of confusions that result - http://superuser.com/questions/220771/how-can-i-create-a-database-in-postgresql-on-windows-7 http://superuser.com/questions/220771/how-can-i-create-a-dat... Check this section out - http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/privilege-system.html http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/privilege-system.html. The reason why I am picking up client authentication example is that this where 90% of beginner postgres problems occur: they happened to me and they happen to every other first timer. Is postgres more complicated ? No, but you need to explain it better. I find this to be a much more useful tutorial to point first timers to, even if they are not on Ubuntu : https://help.ubuntu.com/10.04/serverguide/postgresql.html https://help.ubuntu.com/10.04/serverguide/postgresql.html
jeltz 14y ago
The presentation in the article you link to is highly biased in favor for SQL Server. it tells us that "From a cost perspective, SQL Server is the clear winner." which is untrue since PostgreSQL supported by EnterpriseDB, SQL Server and Sybase all have so close TCOs that any minor tweaking of the assumptions could make any of them the winner. For costs the article really only shows one thing: Oracle is way more expensive than the rest. For the scoring model the article just asks us to trust in them since they do not provide the results of the feature scoring method.

jerryji 14y ago

Get more billion-dollar companies to use PostgreSQL. How? Use PostgreSQL in our own startup, and build it into another billion-dollar company.

ceyhunkazel 14y ago
These will be web startups. Main problem for enterprises is lack of support from enterprise applications (ERP,CRM..) like SAP.
- jaylevitt 14y ago
  Web startups can become enterprises. Today's enterprises were car factories, farms, and accountants.

jasonwatkinspdx 14y ago

What a fantastic example of false quantification and pretension to objectivity.

AlisdairO 14y ago
Yeesh, you're right, that's pretty bad. The assumption that the customer isn't going to need to update the database version (and thus shell out more...) in those 10 years invalidates the cost assumptions all on its own. There's legitimate reasons to buy from the big three DB providers: there's a shortage of quality DBAs for postgres, and of course there are the 5-10% of cases that actually need the features/performance of the big 3. Evaluations like this, however, do not make a good case.
ceyhunkazel 14y ago
We need objective comparisons to promote PostgreSQL.
- astrodust 14y ago
  You need more than that. Comparisons and bullet points and blog posts aren't the problem here, there's already billions of those. What's needed is more "PostgreSQL for SQL Server People" type conversion material and tools to help facilitate this process. NaviCat is not an acceptable solution here. Years ago when I switched to MySQL it was because it was easy to get going, a lot of community support around the product. You have questions, you get answers almost immediately. Postgres is a much more sophisticated offering and still needs to file down a lot of the sharp edges on their toolset. The psql command line tool for one is very bewildering to the uninitiated and has two conflicting syntaxes, one for the backslash commands and one for actual queries. This is not unlike other SQL shells, but MySQL, while highly non-standard, does have the advantage of a unified interface here.

Hoff 14y ago

Wider adoption? In enterprise-scale companies? For starters, acquire the reputation for providing high-touch, enterprise-grade, enterprise-focused, enterprise-costs support, with all that entails, and preferably with a cost somewhat below what Oracle charges. Provide enterprise-friendly DBA training, certifications, and other related materials. Have your sales reps schmooze the C-level office, and the IT leadership. But adoption of databases in enterprises in general? They're loathe to change their databases, and have massive investments in their existing software and hardware processes, and their staff and training. The costs involved here are staggering. If you're looking for more organic growth (and as some of those smaller companies grow and get bigger), that'll happen. But it'll take years. Maybe some acceptance in smaller projects in enterprises, but this sort of "shadow IT" can be a guerrilla effort in an enterprise; discouraged by management.

luriel 14y ago
> enterprise-costs support, with all that entails, [...] Provide enterprise-friendly DBA training, certifications, and other related materials. Most of those things are basically a scam (and often also a racket). > Have your sales reps schmooze the C-level office, and the IT leadership. And there you got your answer: basically, bribery.
- taligent 14y ago
  This is just nonsense. I work in enterprise and support/training is vital for maintaining 24/7 support coverage and ensuring that developers have the best knowledge from the vendor.

sandGorgon 14y ago

The simple answer is to make better tools. There is still no single, awesome, dedicated tool to migrate from MySQL to Postgresql. (side note: Did you know that Postgres can actually act as a replication slave for SQL Server ? ). Again, there is no official Mysql Workbench for Postgres, let alone things like SequelPro. (although a member on the Indian HN - Hackerstreet - is building one at http://pgxplorer.com/ http://pgxplorer.com/) Second - documentation as compared to other database vendors. No, this is not flamebait - by itself, it is very good and adequate. But for people used to MySQL, SQL Server - it feels...scary. Check out http://dev.mysql.com/doc/ http://dev.mysql.com/doc/ (sidenote: has docs in epub format as well) vs http://www.postgresql.org/docs/ http://www.postgresql.org/docs/

jeltz 14y ago
> Second - documentation as compared to other database vendors. No, this is not flamebait - by itself, it is very good and adequate. But for people used to MySQL, SQL Server - it feels...scary. What is scary about it? Genuinely curious since I started out with MySQL and then when I started using PostgreSQL thought the PostgreSQL documentation was the best ever. It probably is a matter of preference, but I am curios what is scary. EDIT: As for your two links the MySQL page is way scarier.. So many options, so many links.
fdr 14y ago
I basically agree with you, except in regard to documentation, of which I find exceptional in PostgreSQL, even compared to other database systems. Your toplevel comparison of the index of both manuals is not very informative to me. What do you feel is missing from PostgreSQL's manual that you find in other documentation sources?
- sandGorgon 14y ago
  I think it is hard for me to explain, because actually -> I <- prefer the Postgres documentation. However, I realized that was because it is fundamentally a man page. For someone who is exploring Postgres, or for someone who comes from other databases, it is way too abridged. A simple example is the getting started part http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/creating-database.html http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/creating-database.htm... vs http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/interactive/tutorial-createdb.html http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/interactive/tutorial-crea... Notice that Postgres has switched to using system commands like "createdb" while mysql sticks to SQL - there is a perfectly viable way to do this in Postgres using SQL, but perhaps the author didnt want to go directly to explaining template databases (which is simpler IMHO). Go and ask someone who is new to both Mysql and Postgres to read these sections. Based on the distro they are on, you have completely lost them between the complexities of the OS vs the database Here is an example of the kind of confusions that result - http://superuser.com/questions/220771/how-can-i-create-a-database-in-postgresql-on-windows-7 http://superuser.com/questions/220771/how-can-i-create-a-dat... Check this section out - http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/privilege-system.html http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/privilege-system.html. The reason why I am picking up client authentication example is that this where 90% of beginner postgres problems occur: they happened to me and they happen to every other first timer. Is postgres more complicated ? No, but you need to explain it better. I find this to be a much more useful tutorial to point first timers to, even if they are not on Ubuntu : https://help.ubuntu.com/10.04/serverguide/postgresql.html https://help.ubuntu.com/10.04/serverguide/postgresql.html

jeltz 14y ago

The presentation in the article you link to is highly biased in favor for SQL Server. it tells us that "From a cost perspective, SQL Server is the clear winner." which is untrue since PostgreSQL supported by EnterpriseDB, SQL Server and Sybase all have so close TCOs that any minor tweaking of the assumptions could make any of them the winner. For costs the article really only shows one thing: Oracle is way more expensive than the rest. For the scoring model the article just asks us to trust in them since they do not provide the results of the feature scoring method.