5 ms·

Why is PostgreSQL considered to have a steep learning curve? At least coming from another SQL database, it's a 5 minute install and has none of the weird quirks

Why is PostgreSQL considered to have a steep learning curve? At least coming from another SQL database, it's a 5 minute install and has none of the weird quirks like "the empty string is null" etc.

vog 11y ago
Also, I find the PostgreSQL manual to be one of the best Free Software documentations. It is clear, accurate and up to date. In general, PostgreSQL has no nasty surprises. It's a very smooth experience. Even "under the hood", from a developers perspective, PostgreSQL has a very responsive mailing list, is friendly to newcomers and yet has a one of the best quality assurance mechanisms I'm aware of. Tom Lane and all the other PostgreSQL hackers do a really good job there. ("Commit fests", Releases on regular schedule, "Stable" is really stable, beta-versions are honestly marked as "Beta", etc.)
- djm_ 11y ago
  Postgres has fantastic documentation, but it still is rather intimidating to the completely new developer. For example, take the following scenario: 1. Go to project's website 2. Click docs/documentation. This is what you get: Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/ http://www.postgresql.org/docs/ MongoDB: http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/ http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/ RethinkDB: http://rethinkdb.com/docs/ http://rethinkdb.com/docs/ Wipe your entire memory of databases for a second: which one would you chose to delve further into?
  - anarazel 11y ago
    Agreed. I think PG has pretty good reference documentation, with a few weaker sections, but horrible introductory material. Once you're familiar with postgres you wonder why you'd ever need anything more than good reference documentation, but that's just because you now know where to look for what. EDIT: missing word
  - Gracana 11y ago
    Man, the MongoDB documentation looks different. I was getting into it a couple years ago, and I was so frustrated with it, like it would explain that something returns an error but not what the values could be, or the prototype would show it returned something but the documentation wouldn't say what, or parameters would be left unexplained, etc. Looks like it's all new and different now, which is probably a good thing.
  - anc84 11y ago
    Actual link to docs is http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/interactive/index.html http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/interactive/index.html , come on, be fair.
    - shawn-furyan 11y ago
      The GP is being fair. The link provided is the one exposed on the postgresql.org homepage. The GP was explicit in considering the different projects from the POV of a new user unfamiliar with them. If the url that you provide is the most appropriate, then that is the url that should be anchored to the 'Documentation' link on the Postgres homepage. I imagine that rethink and Mongo also have point versions. They both choose not to force new users to choose, devoid of context, which point version is most appropriate (sure you can use heuristics, like highest non-experimental point version, but this heuristic sometimes leads to pitfalls, Python and Perl come to mind). And the http://www.postgresql.org/docs/ http://www.postgresql.org/docs/ landing page is made even less necessary since the 'interactive' documentation already has links at the top to other point versions. Throw in a minimal sidebar and you could kill the landing page without losing any of the functionality. Of course, Postgres has been around longer, and their last major website redesign probably pre-dates the entire existence of the other two websites altogether[1], but that has no bearing on which website is the least intimidating to newcomers. If postgres sees fit to make their website less intimidating to newcomers, then their work is cut out for them. [1] Confirmed via Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. The last postgresql.org redisign was complete by early 2006. Mongo and ReThink websites showed up, in minimal form, in late 2008 and early 2009 respectively.
djm_ 11y ago
>At least coming from another SQL database..[].. Yeah, that'd be it. Not everyone comes to Postgres with an understanding of another RDBMS or even SQL; I would imagine this guide is designed to reduce the learning curve for those developers who are more likely to pick up a popular NoSQL solution simply because it has more user friendly docs and a data structure they are already used to dealing with, i.e JSON (k:v). HN users seem to agree with the concept "if in doubt, use Postgres" but that is far from the reality out there, especially in those circles not particularly used to handling ops (e.g frontend).
aidos 11y ago
I can't speak as to other's experience but the one thing I found more complex was the user account side of things. Certainly compared to mysql's simple username / password system there was a lot more to understand to set it up. I'm much happier with it now, and it's a way more robust system – but it was a hurdle to get over. Other than that I found it a dream to work with straight away (though I have plenty of prior RDBMS experience to draw on).

Why is PostgreSQL considered to have a steep learning curve? At least coming from another SQL database, it's a 5 minute install and has none of the weird quirks like "the empty string is null" etc.

vog 11y ago

Also, I find the PostgreSQL manual to be one of the best Free Software documentations. It is clear, accurate and up to date. In general, PostgreSQL has no nasty surprises. It's a very smooth experience. Even "under the hood", from a developers perspective, PostgreSQL has a very responsive mailing list, is friendly to newcomers and yet has a one of the best quality assurance mechanisms I'm aware of. Tom Lane and all the other PostgreSQL hackers do a really good job there. ("Commit fests", Releases on regular schedule, "Stable" is really stable, beta-versions are honestly marked as "Beta", etc.)

djm_ 11y ago
Postgres has fantastic documentation, but it still is rather intimidating to the completely new developer. For example, take the following scenario: 1. Go to project's website 2. Click docs/documentation. This is what you get: Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/ http://www.postgresql.org/docs/ MongoDB: http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/ http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/ RethinkDB: http://rethinkdb.com/docs/ http://rethinkdb.com/docs/ Wipe your entire memory of databases for a second: which one would you chose to delve further into?
- anarazel 11y ago
  Agreed. I think PG has pretty good reference documentation, with a few weaker sections, but horrible introductory material. Once you're familiar with postgres you wonder why you'd ever need anything more than good reference documentation, but that's just because you now know where to look for what. EDIT: missing word
- Gracana 11y ago
  Man, the MongoDB documentation looks different. I was getting into it a couple years ago, and I was so frustrated with it, like it would explain that something returns an error but not what the values could be, or the prototype would show it returned something but the documentation wouldn't say what, or parameters would be left unexplained, etc. Looks like it's all new and different now, which is probably a good thing.
- anc84 11y ago
  Actual link to docs is http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/interactive/index.html http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/interactive/index.html , come on, be fair.
  - shawn-furyan 11y ago
    The GP is being fair. The link provided is the one exposed on the postgresql.org homepage. The GP was explicit in considering the different projects from the POV of a new user unfamiliar with them. If the url that you provide is the most appropriate, then that is the url that should be anchored to the 'Documentation' link on the Postgres homepage. I imagine that rethink and Mongo also have point versions. They both choose not to force new users to choose, devoid of context, which point version is most appropriate (sure you can use heuristics, like highest non-experimental point version, but this heuristic sometimes leads to pitfalls, Python and Perl come to mind). And the http://www.postgresql.org/docs/ http://www.postgresql.org/docs/ landing page is made even less necessary since the 'interactive' documentation already has links at the top to other point versions. Throw in a minimal sidebar and you could kill the landing page without losing any of the functionality. Of course, Postgres has been around longer, and their last major website redesign probably pre-dates the entire existence of the other two websites altogether[1], but that has no bearing on which website is the least intimidating to newcomers. If postgres sees fit to make their website less intimidating to newcomers, then their work is cut out for them. [1] Confirmed via Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. The last postgresql.org redisign was complete by early 2006. Mongo and ReThink websites showed up, in minimal form, in late 2008 and early 2009 respectively.

djm_ 11y ago

>At least coming from another SQL database..[].. Yeah, that'd be it. Not everyone comes to Postgres with an understanding of another RDBMS or even SQL; I would imagine this guide is designed to reduce the learning curve for those developers who are more likely to pick up a popular NoSQL solution simply because it has more user friendly docs and a data structure they are already used to dealing with, i.e JSON (k:v). HN users seem to agree with the concept "if in doubt, use Postgres" but that is far from the reality out there, especially in those circles not particularly used to handling ops (e.g frontend).

aidos 11y ago

I can't speak as to other's experience but the one thing I found more complex was the user account side of things. Certainly compared to mysql's simple username / password system there was a lot more to understand to set it up. I'm much happier with it now, and it's a way more robust system – but it was a hurdle to get over. Other than that I found it a dream to work with straight away (though I have plenty of prior RDBMS experience to draw on).