Hello, We''re making a development decision soon to use Ruby to develop a front end for our system. The backend currently runs on Postgresql. Some contractors are pushing us to change the backend database to MySQL, simply because it''s more common to work with Ruby + MySQL. We prefer not to support more than one kind of database in house. We have gotten push back from contractors, who have said, "If it''s not MySQL, I wont bid on it." I am not a Ruby Developer (IANARD), but I would like to know if there is an issue with using Ruby + Postgres. Someone indicated that Ruby + MySQL play nice together, whereas it''s problematic to use other kinds of DBs. This sounds ridiculous to me, but if I''m missing something, I would love to hear some opinions. Is there an issue with support for Ruby+Postgres? Thanks, Bill -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Bill Sim wrote:> Hello, > > We''re making a development decision soon to use Ruby to develop a front > end for our system. The backend currently runs on Postgresql. Some > contractors are pushing us to change the backend database to MySQL, > simply because it''s more common to work with Ruby + MySQL. We prefer > not to support more than one kind of database in house.I''ve been using ruby + postgres for many years with no problems at all. I have also used ruby + Mysql on and off over the past few years and encountered a few problems with it. I think if you scan this mailing list archive you will see far more problem reported about mysql adapters, timeouts etc. than postgres. That maybe because more people use mysql, it''s hard to tell.> We have gotten push back from contractors, who have said, "If it''s not > MySQL, I wont bid on it." I am not a Ruby Developer (IANARD), but I > would like to know if there is an issue with using Ruby + Postgres. > Someone indicated that Ruby + MySQL play nice together, whereas it''s > problematic to use other kinds of DBs.My own opinion (no flame wars!) and I know also the opinions of many others is that postgres is a superior database in almost every respect, particularly the later (8.2+) versions. In every scenario I have, postgres has outperformed and remained much more stable on any meaningful sized databases (1GB to 100GB).> This sounds ridiculous to me, but if I''m missing something, I would love > to hear some opinions. Is there an issue with support for > Ruby+Postgres?We currently have a very large rails application using postgres and it hasn''t failed us once. We develop under Windows and Linux and deploy under Linux and FreeBSD. Windows is fine as long as you use the postgres-pr gem, mainly because the binary adapters for ruby are not well supported under Windows. Using Linux and FreeBSD, never had a problem. I''m sure you will find support for the combination and even commercial support for postgres itself if needs be. Cheers, Gary. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Bill Sim <rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Hello, > > We''re making a development decision soon to use Ruby to develop a front > end for our system. The backend currently runs on Postgresql. Some > contractors are pushing us to change the backend database to MySQL, > simply because it''s more common to work with Ruby + MySQL. We prefer > not to support more than one kind of database in house. > > We have gotten push back from contractors, who have said, "If it''s not > MySQL, I wont bid on it." I am not a Ruby Developer (IANARD), but I > would like to know if there is an issue with using Ruby + Postgres. > Someone indicated that Ruby + MySQL play nice together, whereas it''s > problematic to use other kinds of DBs. > > This sounds ridiculous to me, but if I''m missing something, I would love > to hear some opinions. Is there an issue with support for > Ruby+Postgres?Hi Bill, MySQL is almost a de facto standard for web development, and most people are so ignorant that they think MySQL is the only RDBMS that plays nicely with any platform. Obviously, it may be the most widely used RDBMS in web apps, therefore, you will find much more volunteers to add support for it. But, as far as I know Postgres plays nicely with Rails. I haven''t tried it myself, but I have had people report that it does work nice with it. It is true that Rails does not work nicely with a few RDBMSs, but that has to do with the fact that the majority work with MySQL, hence you will tend to get more support for MySQL. If you don''t want to lose the contract, then just do what they say: go with MySQL. The only problem that I see with MySQL is the licensing scheme, which isn''t very attractive. Fidel. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Bill Sim <rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> This sounds ridiculous to me, but if I''m missing something, I would love > to hear some opinions. Is there an issue with support for > Ruby+Postgres?Not that I''ve found... I''ve got a fairly large database schema, partially defined in ruby, partially defined as actual PostgreSQL statements, with referential integrity, triggers, views, etc, and ruby''s coping with it fine. For some reason to make a model that queried a view in the database, I had to add this to the model definition: def self.inheritance_column "none" end I can''t remember if that was due to the table actually being a view, or if there was some other reason for that... but Ruby and PostgresSQL have been playing together very nicely for me, even with a heavily customized/programmed DB on the PG side. Cheers, Tyler --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Gary Doades <gpd-UVRRe/+0hzLQXOPxS62xeg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> My own opinion (no flame wars!) and I know also the opinions of many > others is that postgres is a superior database in almost every respect, > particularly the later (8.2+) versions. > > In every scenario I have, postgres has outperformed and remained much > more stable on any meaningful sized databases (1GB to 100GB). >Shouldn''t agree more. Fidel. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
PostgreSQL +1 On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Fidel Viegas <fidel.viegas-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>wrote:> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Gary Doades <gpd-UVRRe/+0hzLQXOPxS62xeg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > My own opinion (no flame wars!) and I know also the opinions of many > > others is that postgres is a superior database in almost every respect, > > particularly the later (8.2+) versions. > > > > In every scenario I have, postgres has outperformed and remained much > > more stable on any meaningful sized databases (1GB to 100GB). > > > > Shouldn''t agree more. > > Fidel. > > > >-- Robby Russell Chief Evangelist, Partner PLANET ARGON, LLC design // development // hosting w/Ruby on Rails http://planetargon.com/ http://robbyonrails.com/ http://twitter.com/planetargon aim: planetargon +1 503 445 2457 +1 877 55 ARGON [toll free] +1 815 642 4068 [fax] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Bill Sim wrote:> This sounds ridiculous to me, but if I''m missing something, I would love > to hear some opinions. Is there an issue with support for Ruby+Postgres?We use Postgres as the backend for everything we run, the sole exception is our webfax front end which I do not have time to figure out how to make work with Postgres. One day perhaps. The main thing to be aware of with contractors is that the dominant thinking about DBMS, insofar as web-app developers go, is that it is a conveniently formatted bit-bucket. This is very far from the truth but it is the current paradigm. ActiveRecord is but a case in point. ORMs frequently make it very difficult to exploit Postgres''s capabilities to any great extent. There are plugins to accomplish a few additional things with Postgres through AR, but most of the features of a full-fledge RDBMS are all but inaccessible without a lot of SQL strings built into your application. If your requirements are at all sophisticated in terms of transaction volume and complexity then you may be better off looking for people who have worked with the sequel gem and who know Postgres inside out. Developers with deep knowledge of the DBMS and its inherent capabilities -- like triggers, functions and stored procedures -- will provide you with far better results than peole who just know web-apps and the minimum necessary to get data in and out of the store. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Bill Sim wrote:> Hello, > > We''re making a development decision soon to use Ruby to develop a front > end for our system. The backend currently runs on Postgresql.That sounds like good decisions all around. Will you be using Rails, or some other Ruby framework?> Some > contractors are pushing us to change the backend database to MySQL, > simply because it''s more common to work with Ruby + MySQL.It''s certainly true that more people use mySQL than Postgres. It''s also true that more people own Windows boxes than Macs. Popular != advisable. :) OK, that was snarky. I agree with others on this thread that PostgreSQL is a better DBMS than mySQL, and no decent developer should have much problem with it.> We prefer > not to support more than one kind of database in house. > > We have gotten push back from contractors, who have said, "If it''s not > MySQL, I wont bid on it."That''s silly. (I''ll bid on your PostgreSQL projects any day!)> I am not a Ruby Developer (IANARD), but I > would like to know if there is an issue with using Ruby + Postgres.Not that I know of. I use them together all the time.> Someone indicated that Ruby + MySQL play nice together, whereas it''s > problematic to use other kinds of DBs. > > This sounds ridiculous to me,And so it is. It''s not problematic at all; in fact, I recommend it.> but if I''m missing something, I would love > to hear some opinions. Is there an issue with support for > Ruby+Postgres?Yes. The issue is that you won''t be able to hire inexperienced developers who don''t want to think about anything but mySQL. :D> > Thanks, > BillBest, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Bill Sim wrote:> Hello, > > We''re making a development decision soon to use Ruby to develop a front > end for our system. The backend currently runs on Postgresql. Some > contractors are pushing us to change the backend database to MySQL, > simply because it''s more common to work with Ruby + MySQL. We prefer > not to support more than one kind of database in house. > > We have gotten push back from contractors, who have said, "If it''s not > MySQL, I wont bid on it." I am not a Ruby Developer (IANARD), but I > would like to know if there is an issue with using Ruby + Postgres. > Someone indicated that Ruby + MySQL play nice together, whereas it''s > problematic to use other kinds of DBs. > > This sounds ridiculous to me, but if I''m missing something, I would love > to hear some opinions. Is there an issue with support for > Ruby+Postgres? > > Thanks, > BillThank you to everyone who replied. This is very helpful. I think we will stick with our current plan, and use Postgresql. In general, it makes me uncomfortable when developers refuse to use one tool or another. It shouldn''t really matter. It''s the architecture that really counts. The code design should be modularized, so that any back-end DB could be used. MySQL and Postgresql shouldn''t make a huge difference to the front-end developer. (We choose Postgresql for the back-end for some particular reasons, nothing to do with the front-end.). -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Friday 17 April 2009, Bill Sim wrote:> This sounds ridiculous to me, but if I''m missing something, I would > love to hear some opinions. Is there an issue with support for > Ruby+Postgres?I much prefer PostgreSQL over MySQL. MySQL''s interpretation of the SQL standard(s) has driven me up the wall at times. Does it still force a default value on every column with a NOT NULL constraint? PostgreSQL works great with Rails, the support in the core is exactly as for MySQL. I''ve encountered the odd extension (plugin, gem, whatever) that only supports MySQL, but that may rather an indication of the extension''s quality. Michael -- Michael Schuerig mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Saturday 18 April 2009, Michael Schuerig wrote:> On Friday 17 April 2009, Bill Sim wrote: > > This sounds ridiculous to me, but if I''m missing something, I would > > love to hear some opinions. Is there an issue with support for > > Ruby+Postgres? > > I much prefer PostgreSQL over MySQL.Some other points you might want to check if you compare these two: - Behavior under concurrent accesses: Transactional isolation, locking. - Transactional changes to the DB structure. - Performance with many joins. - Changing the structure of (large) existing tables. In my experience, PostgreSQL is better in all of these. Michael -- Michael Schuerig mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
"Some other points you might want to check if you compare these two: - Behavior under concurrent accesses: Transactional isolation, locking. - Transactional changes to the DB structure. - Performance with many joins. - Changing the structure of (large) existing tables. In my experience, PostgreSQL is better in all of these." Me too. -- Robert Anderson Nogueira de Oliveira _________________________ Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de Sergipe Graduando em Sistemas de Informação - UNIT MSN: ranophoenix-PkbjNfxxIARBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org "Ausência de evidência não é evidência de ausência." (Carl Sagan) On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Michael Schuerig <michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>wrote:> Some other points you might want to check if you compare these two: > > - Behavior under concurrent accesses: Transactional isolation, locking. > - Transactional changes to the DB structure. > - Performance with many joins. > - Changing the structure of (large) existing tables. > > In my experience, PostgreSQL is better in all of these. >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Bill Sim <rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> We have gotten push back from contractors, who have said, "If it''s not > MySQL, I wont bid on it." I am not a Ruby Developer (IANARD), but I > would like to know if there is an issue with using Ruby + Postgres.One thing to consider is that the idea that ActiveRecord just magically insulates the developer from understanding the underlying database is wishful thinking, once you get past your basic ''hello world'' app. So if someone knows MySQL well, s/he may not want to put the time into learning the gotchas of another DB. I would charge more just to cover the aggravation of using Postgres''s god-awful command line tools. :-) But personally, I''m database-agnostic -- right now I''m working on a JRuby/Rails/Oracle app. Ultimately, it''s "run what ya brung" :-) FWIW, -- Hassan Schroeder ------------------------ hassan.schroeder-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Robby Russell wrote:> PostgreSQL +1 >I was scrolling down, waiting for Robby to chime in, then I find this- c''mon, Robby, I expected more PASSION! :-P - Danny -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hassan Schroeder wrote:> > So if someone knows MySQL well, s/he may not want to put the time > into learning the gotchas of another DB. I would charge more just to > cover the aggravation of using Postgres''s god-awful command line > tools. :-)I Guess you''ve never found PgAdmin then :) Cheers, Gary. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Gary Doades <gpd-UVRRe/+0hzLQXOPxS62xeg@public.gmane.org> wrote:>> So if someone knows MySQL well, s/he may not want to put the time >> into learning the gotchas of another DB. I would charge more just to >> cover the aggravation of using Postgres''s god-awful command line >> tools. :-) > > I Guess you''ve never found PgAdmin then :)I have -- it doesn''t appear to be a command-line interface. Or is there a way to invoke it in a non-GUI mode? -- Hassan Schroeder ------------------------ hassan.schroeder-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I have been working MySql and Postgres for web applications(I am talking about Rails applications of course ) and both work well. From my point of view Postgres is more powerful and I prefer work with this for my development if there is not any rule which limit me for some good reason _______________________________________________ Gnu/Linux count user #416024 Pagina personal : http://www.cesardiaz.com.ar Mi blog : http://cesarediaz.blogspot.com Twitter : http://twitter.com/cesarstafe Github repository: http://github.com/cesarediaz/ Skype: cesarstafe --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hassan Schroeder wrote:> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Gary Doades <gpd-UVRRe/+0hzLQXOPxS62xeg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >>> So if someone knows MySQL well, s/he may not want to put the time >>> into learning the gotchas of another DB. I would charge more just to >>> cover the aggravation of using Postgres''s god-awful command line >>> tools. :-) >> I Guess you''ve never found PgAdmin then :) > > I have -- it doesn''t appear to be a command-line interface. Or is > there a way to invoke it in a non-GUI mode? >Sorry, I thought you were saying that postgres tools were only command-line. What''s wrong with psql, pg_dump, pg_restore, pg_ctl etc.? What does mysql have in the way of command-line tools that postgres doesn''t? I pretty much always use PgAdmin unless there is no alternative, or when I need postgres tools in scripts. For ad-hoc management of servers I normally use PgAdmin remotely. Cheers, Gary. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Gary Doades <gpd-UVRRe/+0hzLQXOPxS62xeg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> What''s wrong with psql, pg_dump, pg_restore, pg_ctl etc.? > > What does mysql have in the way of command-line tools that postgres doesn''t?It''s not that there are /different/ tools, it''s that the postgres versions seem awkward, clumsy and unhelpful compared to mysql''s. I''m sure you''d get used to them if you had to, like anything else. But the experience is not particularly pleasant. YMMV, -- Hassan Schroeder ------------------------ hassan.schroeder-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Saturday 18 April 2009, Hassan Schroeder wrote:> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Gary Doades <gpd-UVRRe/+0hzLQXOPxS62xeg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > What''s wrong with psql, pg_dump, pg_restore, pg_ctl etc.? > > > > What does mysql have in the way of command-line tools that postgres > > doesn''t? > > It''s not that there are /different/ tools, it''s that the postgres > versions seem awkward, clumsy and unhelpful compared to mysql''s.Somehow it''s the other way round for me. With the the PostgreSQL command line tools, notably psql, I have tab completion when I invoke them and inside the tool itself, where I also get extensive help. I don''t seem to get tab completion with the mysql command. From my experience, your accusation of the PostgreSQL tools being "awkward, clumsy and unhelpful" appears to be unsubstantiated. Michael -- Michael Schuerig mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Michael Schuerig <michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org> wrote:> From my experience, your > accusation of the PostgreSQL tools being "awkward, clumsy and unhelpful" > appears to be unsubstantiated.Dude, don''t get your knickers in a twist. I made a comment, not an "accusation", and there''s hardly anything to "substantiate" when we''re discussing *opinions*. You like the pg* tools, I don''t. YMMV. Go and be happy. Geez... -- Hassan Schroeder ------------------------ hassan.schroeder-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Glad to see that you''ve settled on Postgresql. I think the contractor who insists on using MySQL rather than Postgres is probably a bit immature in their DB experience. I came to Ruby from a Delphi/Interbase/MSSQL environment and started using MySQL because it was the default. It was OK but I quickly found problems with queries that just worked on other DB engines because they assumed the SQL-92 standard, but they failed on MySQL. Anyway I''ve switched to Postgresql because it has much, much, much better Geographical Information Services (GIS) support. MySQL has geometry, but only on MyISAM and only flat geometry, not spherical geometrey, duuuh! MySQL is OK if you''re doing extremely simple stuff and like the herd mentality around it. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
There was just a podcast about this on SD Ruby. http://sdruby.com/podcast/ I believe it is EP 55 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Two small quibbles that I thought were just big enough to raise here... On Apr 17, 4:30 pm, Bill Sim <rails-mailing-l...-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I think we will stick with our current plan, and usePostgresql. In > general, it makes me uncomfortable when developers refuse to use one > tool or another.It depends on the developer. Good developers know what they''re talking about, and their preferences can often tell you a lot about a tool -- and about their development practices -- that you might not otherwise know. In other words, if a developer has a *good* reason for refusing to use something, it may be to your advantage to find out what that reason is.> It shouldn''t really matter. It''s the architecture > that really counts.Perhaps, but in practice that''s not really true -- details that are computationally trivial can make a huge difference to developer productivity. That''s why we don''t typically develop Web apps in C, although it can be and has been done. On Apr 17, 9:44 pm, Hassan Schroeder <hassan.schroe...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: [...]> One thing to consider is that the idea that ActiveRecord just magically > insulates the developer from understanding the underlying database > is wishful thinking, once you get past your basic ''hello world'' app.Yes, you have to *understand* the DB, but that often does not require changes to well-written code. I have written and maintained complex applications that were deployed on both mySQL and PostgreSQL, often simultaneously. ActiveRecord really *does* insulate the developer from a lot of DB-specific stuff -- if the developer is smart and writes DB-neutrally. (I just took over maintenance of an app where the developer didn''t do that...) And part of being "smart" is understanding the underlying DB well enough to know what''s portable and what isn''t.> > So if someone knows MySQL well, s/he may not want to put the time > into learning the gotchas of another DB. I would charge more just to > cover the aggravation of using Postgres''s god-awful command line > tools. :-)I never use the command-line tools, either with PostgreSQL or mySQL. I don''t find either set to be very easy to use...that''s what graphical admin programs are for. (Maybe if I were a DBA, things would be different. But I just don''t use the command-line tools often enough to remember syntax between uses.) Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org http://www.marnen.org
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser <marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Yes, you have to *understand* the DB, but that often does not require > changes to well-written code. I have written and maintained complex > applications that were deployed on both mySQL and PostgreSQL, often > simultaneously. ActiveRecord really *does* insulate the developer > from a lot of DB-specific stuff -- if the developer is smart and > writes DB-neutrally.When you use *standard AR associations* -- no custom SQL at all -- and it runs on one DB and fails on another, I''d say you need to know a little more about those DBs. Wouldn''t you? :-) -- Hassan Schroeder ------------------------ hassan.schroeder-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
TheRailsWayOrTheHighway
2009-Apr-20 19:23 UTC
Re: Ruby + Postgres = Bad Idea or Good Idea?
Here''s a quote from the February issue of Linux Journal (p69) that might be of interest to you: "I use PostgreSQL as my database, as I''ve decided to give PostgreSQL a go having read Reuven Lerner''s excellent series of articles comparing PostgreSQL to MySQL (see the April, May and June 2007 issues of LJ.)" Especially significant, now that Oracle will own MySQL.