<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_01_1831250</id>
	<title>PostgreSQL 8.4 Out</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246474800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/database-soup" rel="nofollow">TheFuzzy</a> writes <i>"<a href="http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.1108">PostgreSQL version 8.4</a> is now <a href="http://www.techworld.com.au/article/309585/postgresql\_8\_4\_released\_focus\_admin\_monitoring">out and available for download</a>.  The main cool features in this version are: recursive queries (for doing trees etc.), <a href="http://www.postgresonline.com/journal/index.php?/archives/122-Window-Functions-Comparison-Between-PostgreSQL-8.4,-SQL-Server-2008,-Oracle,-IBM-DB2.html">windowing functions (for doing reports)</a>  <a href="http://andreas.scherbaum.la/blog/archives/577-PostgreSQL-8.4-Column-Permissions.html#extended">column-level permissions</a>, <a href="http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/database-soup/using-84-parallel-restore-with-your-83-or-82-database-31575">parallel database restore</a>, a beta in-place upgrade tool, and a host of administrative improvements. And, of course, better performance, mainly on reporting queries. Some of the <a href="http://www.postgresql.org/about/press/features84.html">over 200 new or enhanced features are listed here</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>TheFuzzy writes " PostgreSQL version 8.4 is now out and available for download .
The main cool features in this version are : recursive queries ( for doing trees etc .
) , windowing functions ( for doing reports ) column-level permissions , parallel database restore , a beta in-place upgrade tool , and a host of administrative improvements .
And , of course , better performance , mainly on reporting queries .
Some of the over 200 new or enhanced features are listed here .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TheFuzzy writes "PostgreSQL version 8.4 is now out and available for download.
The main cool features in this version are: recursive queries (for doing trees etc.
), windowing functions (for doing reports)  column-level permissions, parallel database restore, a beta in-place upgrade tool, and a host of administrative improvements.
And, of course, better performance, mainly on reporting queries.
Some of the over 200 new or enhanced features are listed here.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28552279</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>nemesisrocks</author>
	<datestamp>1246454880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone even use mySQL when they have features like this?</p></div><p>That's easy, and can be answered in two words: <b>first impressions</b> </p><p>Like it or not, when you're marketing to the masses, first impressions count.  With database systems, a good chunk of your userbase will be ex-Access or ex-MSSQL users.  Postgres, while it's a technically fantastic database, sucks on first impressions, and the mindset required is significantly different to Access or MSSQL.  "Schema" instead of "Database", and defaults to fairly restrictive permissions, making first-time use a bit of a hurdle.</p><p>MySQL on the other hand has a decent Windows installer, some great tools to manage the DB, and doesn't require a large shift in mindset to get apps up and running against it.  And once they've installed and have a few apps running MySQL, they're far more likely to continue to...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone even use mySQL when they have features like this ? That 's easy , and can be answered in two words : first impressions Like it or not , when you 're marketing to the masses , first impressions count .
With database systems , a good chunk of your userbase will be ex-Access or ex-MSSQL users .
Postgres , while it 's a technically fantastic database , sucks on first impressions , and the mindset required is significantly different to Access or MSSQL .
" Schema " instead of " Database " , and defaults to fairly restrictive permissions , making first-time use a bit of a hurdle.MySQL on the other hand has a decent Windows installer , some great tools to manage the DB , and does n't require a large shift in mindset to get apps up and running against it .
And once they 've installed and have a few apps running MySQL , they 're far more likely to continue to.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone even use mySQL when they have features like this?That's easy, and can be answered in two words: first impressions Like it or not, when you're marketing to the masses, first impressions count.
With database systems, a good chunk of your userbase will be ex-Access or ex-MSSQL users.
Postgres, while it's a technically fantastic database, sucks on first impressions, and the mindset required is significantly different to Access or MSSQL.
"Schema" instead of "Database", and defaults to fairly restrictive permissions, making first-time use a bit of a hurdle.MySQL on the other hand has a decent Windows installer, some great tools to manage the DB, and doesn't require a large shift in mindset to get apps up and running against it.
And once they've installed and have a few apps running MySQL, they're far more likely to continue to...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28549825</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>rasherbuyer</author>
	<datestamp>1246443180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason there are comparisons between MySQL and PostgreSQL is because they are both Open Source. Otherwise there is no comparison.</p><p>PostgreSQL is a fully featured, enterprise ready, RDBMS and stands for comparison with Oracle and DB2 and to a lesser extent Sybase/SQL Server. MySQL is not even in the same league as any of the previously mentioned. However, web developers seem to like it...</p><p>I'll show my colours and say that I've been working with Oracle for over 10 years, and I love it, it gets better all the time. I can't comment on DB2 as I haven't used it for about 10 years and then only briefly.</p><p>I've just finished managing a six month data migration project from SQL Server to Oracle. Oracle is head and shoulders above SQL Server in the query stakes and stomps all over it with it's procedural language (PL/SQL vs TSQL). PostgreSQL is much more Oracle-like than anything else, pl/pgsq is even comparable with PL/SQL although not as feature rich.</p><p>I recon the Postgres guys are at least at a par with 8i comparing against Oracle, which is pretty damned impressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason there are comparisons between MySQL and PostgreSQL is because they are both Open Source .
Otherwise there is no comparison.PostgreSQL is a fully featured , enterprise ready , RDBMS and stands for comparison with Oracle and DB2 and to a lesser extent Sybase/SQL Server .
MySQL is not even in the same league as any of the previously mentioned .
However , web developers seem to like it...I 'll show my colours and say that I 've been working with Oracle for over 10 years , and I love it , it gets better all the time .
I ca n't comment on DB2 as I have n't used it for about 10 years and then only briefly.I 've just finished managing a six month data migration project from SQL Server to Oracle .
Oracle is head and shoulders above SQL Server in the query stakes and stomps all over it with it 's procedural language ( PL/SQL vs TSQL ) .
PostgreSQL is much more Oracle-like than anything else , pl/pgsq is even comparable with PL/SQL although not as feature rich.I recon the Postgres guys are at least at a par with 8i comparing against Oracle , which is pretty damned impressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason there are comparisons between MySQL and PostgreSQL is because they are both Open Source.
Otherwise there is no comparison.PostgreSQL is a fully featured, enterprise ready, RDBMS and stands for comparison with Oracle and DB2 and to a lesser extent Sybase/SQL Server.
MySQL is not even in the same league as any of the previously mentioned.
However, web developers seem to like it...I'll show my colours and say that I've been working with Oracle for over 10 years, and I love it, it gets better all the time.
I can't comment on DB2 as I haven't used it for about 10 years and then only briefly.I've just finished managing a six month data migration project from SQL Server to Oracle.
Oracle is head and shoulders above SQL Server in the query stakes and stomps all over it with it's procedural language (PL/SQL vs TSQL).
PostgreSQL is much more Oracle-like than anything else, pl/pgsq is even comparable with PL/SQL although not as feature rich.I recon the Postgres guys are at least at a par with 8i comparing against Oracle, which is pretty damned impressive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28556873</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>Carik</author>
	<datestamp>1246545600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'<i>It's rather like when you first started playing with mysql and went "Wow, this is so much better than Excel!"</i>'</p><p>Personally, I never found that mysql (or postresql, for that matter) is better than Excel.  They're useful for totally different things.</p><p>If what you want is a large relational database, then yes, using a relational database instead of a spreadsheet is better.</p><p>If what you want is a spreadsheet, then using a relational database doesn't make much sense, and is a lot more difficult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'It 's rather like when you first started playing with mysql and went " Wow , this is so much better than Excel !
" 'Personally , I never found that mysql ( or postresql , for that matter ) is better than Excel .
They 're useful for totally different things.If what you want is a large relational database , then yes , using a relational database instead of a spreadsheet is better.If what you want is a spreadsheet , then using a relational database does n't make much sense , and is a lot more difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'It's rather like when you first started playing with mysql and went "Wow, this is so much better than Excel!
"'Personally, I never found that mysql (or postresql, for that matter) is better than Excel.
They're useful for totally different things.If what you want is a large relational database, then yes, using a relational database instead of a spreadsheet is better.If what you want is a spreadsheet, then using a relational database doesn't make much sense, and is a lot more difficult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547187</id>
	<title>sweet</title>
	<author>loafula</author>
	<datestamp>1246478460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>thats awesome. first?1??!?!?11</htmltext>
<tokenext>thats awesome .
first ? 1 ? ? ! ? ! ? 11</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thats awesome.
first?1??!?!?11</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28552657</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>turbidostato</author>
	<datestamp>1246458000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Really, you don't need to learn PostgreSQL if MySQL is meeting your needs."</p><p>The real problem is that MySQL only *seems* to meet some needs because the one with them doesn't know any better.</p><p>Nine out of ten times (to say the least) when somebody has told me "but MySQL covers my needs" it turned out he had no idea what their real needs were and what were the tools he could use (both "real" and logical) so he could pick the best fitted.</p><p>While ignorance is a reason, it's not a very glamurous one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Really , you do n't need to learn PostgreSQL if MySQL is meeting your needs .
" The real problem is that MySQL only * seems * to meet some needs because the one with them does n't know any better.Nine out of ten times ( to say the least ) when somebody has told me " but MySQL covers my needs " it turned out he had no idea what their real needs were and what were the tools he could use ( both " real " and logical ) so he could pick the best fitted.While ignorance is a reason , it 's not a very glamurous one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Really, you don't need to learn PostgreSQL if MySQL is meeting your needs.
"The real problem is that MySQL only *seems* to meet some needs because the one with them doesn't know any better.Nine out of ten times (to say the least) when somebody has told me "but MySQL covers my needs" it turned out he had no idea what their real needs were and what were the tools he could use (both "real" and logical) so he could pick the best fitted.While ignorance is a reason, it's not a very glamurous one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28549575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28549575</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>h4rm0ny</author>
	<datestamp>1246442460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
You have given what is, I believe, the most common reason for not switching: MySQL works well enough for what you need so it doesn't make sense to expend additional time and effort (you probably don't have much of the former) to learn something that you will only use for the same purposes. It makes sense.
<br> <br>
But in a friendly response, I'll just mention that once you are familiar with PostgreSQL, you will be aware of what more you can do with it and that may lead to the second part of your logic (you will only do the same things with it) to become false. Because you'll find opportunities to do things in different ways that you may prefer.
<br> <br>
Also, you can become one of us super-annoying people on Slashdot who keep talking about why PostgreSQL is better than MySQL.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) Really, you don't need to learn PostgreSQL if MySQL is meeting your needs. But you might find it fun, more useful than you might have thought, and you wont magically forget your MySQL knowledge so it's not as if you're compelled to seek out only jobs and projects that use PostgreSQL.
<br> <br>
Just some general comments - not a dismissal of what you've said.
<br> <br>
Regards,
<br>
H.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have given what is , I believe , the most common reason for not switching : MySQL works well enough for what you need so it does n't make sense to expend additional time and effort ( you probably do n't have much of the former ) to learn something that you will only use for the same purposes .
It makes sense .
But in a friendly response , I 'll just mention that once you are familiar with PostgreSQL , you will be aware of what more you can do with it and that may lead to the second part of your logic ( you will only do the same things with it ) to become false .
Because you 'll find opportunities to do things in different ways that you may prefer .
Also , you can become one of us super-annoying people on Slashdot who keep talking about why PostgreSQL is better than MySQL .
; ) Really , you do n't need to learn PostgreSQL if MySQL is meeting your needs .
But you might find it fun , more useful than you might have thought , and you wont magically forget your MySQL knowledge so it 's not as if you 're compelled to seek out only jobs and projects that use PostgreSQL .
Just some general comments - not a dismissal of what you 've said .
Regards , H .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You have given what is, I believe, the most common reason for not switching: MySQL works well enough for what you need so it doesn't make sense to expend additional time and effort (you probably don't have much of the former) to learn something that you will only use for the same purposes.
It makes sense.
But in a friendly response, I'll just mention that once you are familiar with PostgreSQL, you will be aware of what more you can do with it and that may lead to the second part of your logic (you will only do the same things with it) to become false.
Because you'll find opportunities to do things in different ways that you may prefer.
Also, you can become one of us super-annoying people on Slashdot who keep talking about why PostgreSQL is better than MySQL.
;) Really, you don't need to learn PostgreSQL if MySQL is meeting your needs.
But you might find it fun, more useful than you might have thought, and you wont magically forget your MySQL knowledge so it's not as if you're compelled to seek out only jobs and projects that use PostgreSQL.
Just some general comments - not a dismissal of what you've said.
Regards,

H.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547303</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246478880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it have built in replication yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it have built in replication yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it have built in replication yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548885</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>Dan Ost</author>
	<datestamp>1246440480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe this is by design.</p><p>Dumping it from one database and loading it into the other will always work, and, I believe, is the recommended procedure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this is by design.Dumping it from one database and loading it into the other will always work , and , I believe , is the recommended procedure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe this is by design.Dumping it from one database and loading it into the other will always work, and, I believe, is the recommended procedure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28552969</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>neoform</author>
	<datestamp>1246460220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where can I find these rabid MySQL fans?

I use mysql and have never met someone that has claimed mysql is better than postgresql, but I never hear the end of it from postgresql users..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where can I find these rabid MySQL fans ?
I use mysql and have never met someone that has claimed mysql is better than postgresql , but I never hear the end of it from postgresql users. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where can I find these rabid MySQL fans?
I use mysql and have never met someone that has claimed mysql is better than postgresql, but I never hear the end of it from postgresql users..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547831</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>ByOhTek</author>
	<datestamp>1246480560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RPF: Rabit Postgres Fanbois.</p><p>Honestly, the more rabid and on-the-offense a community gets, the more a am suspicious of the product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RPF : Rabit Postgres Fanbois.Honestly , the more rabid and on-the-offense a community gets , the more a am suspicious of the product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RPF: Rabit Postgres Fanbois.Honestly, the more rabid and on-the-offense a community gets, the more a am suspicious of the product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548311</id>
	<title>ask...</title>
	<author>SiggyRadiation</author>
	<datestamp>1246438800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...slashdot!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...slashdot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...slashdot!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28553653</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>rycamor</author>
	<datestamp>1246466160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>RPF: Rabit Postgres Fanbois.</p><p>Honestly, the more rabid and on-the-offense a community gets, the more a am suspicious of the product.</p></div><p>Why be suspicious? It's pretty easy to get actual knowledge of what the product does without regard to fanbois or flamers. I don't make any choices for or against a product based on that. Also, if you browse the PostgreSQL mail lists, I think you'll see very little rabid-ness. You *will* see an intense dedication to quality, especially if you read the core developers' lists. Quite interesting discussions, there.</p><p>Anyway, isn't it just a little disingenuous to come to a PostgreSQL thread, and then accuse PostgreSQL supporters of being rabid? When something cool and new and shiny comes out in your favorite [whatever], don't you tend to get a little exuberant? Let them have their fun, and save the that stuff for a MySQL-vs-PostgreSQL thread.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RPF : Rabit Postgres Fanbois.Honestly , the more rabid and on-the-offense a community gets , the more a am suspicious of the product.Why be suspicious ?
It 's pretty easy to get actual knowledge of what the product does without regard to fanbois or flamers .
I do n't make any choices for or against a product based on that .
Also , if you browse the PostgreSQL mail lists , I think you 'll see very little rabid-ness .
You * will * see an intense dedication to quality , especially if you read the core developers ' lists .
Quite interesting discussions , there.Anyway , is n't it just a little disingenuous to come to a PostgreSQL thread , and then accuse PostgreSQL supporters of being rabid ?
When something cool and new and shiny comes out in your favorite [ whatever ] , do n't you tend to get a little exuberant ?
Let them have their fun , and save the that stuff for a MySQL-vs-PostgreSQL thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RPF: Rabit Postgres Fanbois.Honestly, the more rabid and on-the-offense a community gets, the more a am suspicious of the product.Why be suspicious?
It's pretty easy to get actual knowledge of what the product does without regard to fanbois or flamers.
I don't make any choices for or against a product based on that.
Also, if you browse the PostgreSQL mail lists, I think you'll see very little rabid-ness.
You *will* see an intense dedication to quality, especially if you read the core developers' lists.
Quite interesting discussions, there.Anyway, isn't it just a little disingenuous to come to a PostgreSQL thread, and then accuse PostgreSQL supporters of being rabid?
When something cool and new and shiny comes out in your favorite [whatever], don't you tend to get a little exuberant?
Let them have their fun, and save the that stuff for a MySQL-vs-PostgreSQL thread.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548419</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246439100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PHP supports PostgreSQL its as simple as doing a global find-replace of mysql\_ with pg\_ there done. Okay a bit too simple but the mysql functions and the pg functions have the same names other than the prefixes and they behave in the same exact manner. You may need to change a little bit of SQL. </p><p>Once you get to start to use the more advanced features of postgresql you'll look at mysql more as a toy rather than a fully featured RDBMS. </p><p>It's rather like when you first started playing with mysql and went "Wow, this is so much better than Excel!"</p><p>~Z</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PHP supports PostgreSQL its as simple as doing a global find-replace of mysql \ _ with pg \ _ there done .
Okay a bit too simple but the mysql functions and the pg functions have the same names other than the prefixes and they behave in the same exact manner .
You may need to change a little bit of SQL .
Once you get to start to use the more advanced features of postgresql you 'll look at mysql more as a toy rather than a fully featured RDBMS .
It 's rather like when you first started playing with mysql and went " Wow , this is so much better than Excel !
" ~ Z</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PHP supports PostgreSQL its as simple as doing a global find-replace of mysql\_ with pg\_ there done.
Okay a bit too simple but the mysql functions and the pg functions have the same names other than the prefixes and they behave in the same exact manner.
You may need to change a little bit of SQL.
Once you get to start to use the more advanced features of postgresql you'll look at mysql more as a toy rather than a fully featured RDBMS.
It's rather like when you first started playing with mysql and went "Wow, this is so much better than Excel!
"~Z</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28554169</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>Sxooter</author>
	<datestamp>1246473360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  I've found there to be plenty of rabid fanboi types on both side of the fence.  Pgsql users often still have a chip on their shoulder from the totally slanderous statements MySQL AB used to make about PostgreSQL, and they made a lot of them, and for a long time, it stuck, and I heard them repeated over and over from mysql fanbois.</p><p>I tend to ignore fanbois on both sides of the fence and consider the two positions based on reason, evidence, experience, testing, and support.  I find that pgsql beats mysql on most all those accounts.  But I've used both a fair bit before, so I have a basis for comparison.</p><p>Healthy suspicion is a good thing, it keeps us away from things like porcupines.  OTOH, relying on just suspicion won't get you very far.  Try it out, see how it really works.  That applies to everything, not just databases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
I 've found there to be plenty of rabid fanboi types on both side of the fence .
Pgsql users often still have a chip on their shoulder from the totally slanderous statements MySQL AB used to make about PostgreSQL , and they made a lot of them , and for a long time , it stuck , and I heard them repeated over and over from mysql fanbois.I tend to ignore fanbois on both sides of the fence and consider the two positions based on reason , evidence , experience , testing , and support .
I find that pgsql beats mysql on most all those accounts .
But I 've used both a fair bit before , so I have a basis for comparison.Healthy suspicion is a good thing , it keeps us away from things like porcupines .
OTOH , relying on just suspicion wo n't get you very far .
Try it out , see how it really works .
That applies to everything , not just databases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
I've found there to be plenty of rabid fanboi types on both side of the fence.
Pgsql users often still have a chip on their shoulder from the totally slanderous statements MySQL AB used to make about PostgreSQL, and they made a lot of them, and for a long time, it stuck, and I heard them repeated over and over from mysql fanbois.I tend to ignore fanbois on both sides of the fence and consider the two positions based on reason, evidence, experience, testing, and support.
I find that pgsql beats mysql on most all those accounts.
But I've used both a fair bit before, so I have a basis for comparison.Healthy suspicion is a good thing, it keeps us away from things like porcupines.
OTOH, relying on just suspicion won't get you very far.
Try it out, see how it really works.
That applies to everything, not just databases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28555911</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246538580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first impression of MySQL was trying to do my undergrad databases coursework in it.  The coursework was designed for MS Access, but we were allowed to use other databases if we wanted.  I'd heard of MySQL, so I tried it.  On Question 2, it started giving me errors for things that looked like valid SQL.  I tried some of the examples from the notes, and they failed too.  It turned out that MySQL, at the time, didn't support foreign keys.  Considering how fundamental a feature this is (i.e. really, really basic SQL support) I gave up on MySQL and tried PostgreSQL.  With Postgres, it worked perfectly and I completed the coursework.  I've since used Postgres in a few projects.  </p><p>
I hear MySQL has improved recently, but I wouldn't trust my data to something that claims to be an SQL RDBMS and only recently got foreign key support.  For things that don't really need an RDBMS, there's SQLite, which is simple and fast for basic queries.  For things that do, there's PostgreSQL, which is more complicated, but full-featured and fast for complex queries.  There may be a niche between the two where MySQL fits, but I've not found it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first impression of MySQL was trying to do my undergrad databases coursework in it .
The coursework was designed for MS Access , but we were allowed to use other databases if we wanted .
I 'd heard of MySQL , so I tried it .
On Question 2 , it started giving me errors for things that looked like valid SQL .
I tried some of the examples from the notes , and they failed too .
It turned out that MySQL , at the time , did n't support foreign keys .
Considering how fundamental a feature this is ( i.e .
really , really basic SQL support ) I gave up on MySQL and tried PostgreSQL .
With Postgres , it worked perfectly and I completed the coursework .
I 've since used Postgres in a few projects .
I hear MySQL has improved recently , but I would n't trust my data to something that claims to be an SQL RDBMS and only recently got foreign key support .
For things that do n't really need an RDBMS , there 's SQLite , which is simple and fast for basic queries .
For things that do , there 's PostgreSQL , which is more complicated , but full-featured and fast for complex queries .
There may be a niche between the two where MySQL fits , but I 've not found it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first impression of MySQL was trying to do my undergrad databases coursework in it.
The coursework was designed for MS Access, but we were allowed to use other databases if we wanted.
I'd heard of MySQL, so I tried it.
On Question 2, it started giving me errors for things that looked like valid SQL.
I tried some of the examples from the notes, and they failed too.
It turned out that MySQL, at the time, didn't support foreign keys.
Considering how fundamental a feature this is (i.e.
really, really basic SQL support) I gave up on MySQL and tried PostgreSQL.
With Postgres, it worked perfectly and I completed the coursework.
I've since used Postgres in a few projects.
I hear MySQL has improved recently, but I wouldn't trust my data to something that claims to be an SQL RDBMS and only recently got foreign key support.
For things that don't really need an RDBMS, there's SQLite, which is simple and fast for basic queries.
For things that do, there's PostgreSQL, which is more complicated, but full-featured and fast for complex queries.
There may be a niche between the two where MySQL fits, but I've not found it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28552279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28551631</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246451040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woah, I thought you were talking about Apple there...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woah , I thought you were talking about Apple there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woah, I thought you were talking about Apple there...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255</id>
	<title>So why</title>
	<author>jlechem</author>
	<datestamp>1246478700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone even use mySQL when they have features like this?  The only issue I have ever had with this DB was when I was trying to connect a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net app to it and it took me a while to find a workaround.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone even use mySQL when they have features like this ?
The only issue I have ever had with this DB was when I was trying to connect a .net app to it and it took me a while to find a workaround .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone even use mySQL when they have features like this?
The only issue I have ever had with this DB was when I was trying to connect a .net app to it and it took me a while to find a workaround.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548799</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>mvdwege</author>
	<datestamp>1246440240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh? Why would that be a problem? Just use the supplied backup &amp; restore tools (<tt>pg\_dump</tt> and <tt>pg\_restore</tt>), they work just fine. If you really can't back up a database without a pointy-clicky GUI, you have no business being a DBA.</p><p>
Mart</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh ?
Why would that be a problem ?
Just use the supplied backup &amp; restore tools ( pg \ _dump and pg \ _restore ) , they work just fine .
If you really ca n't back up a database without a pointy-clicky GUI , you have no business being a DBA .
Mart</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh?
Why would that be a problem?
Just use the supplied backup &amp; restore tools (pg\_dump and pg\_restore), they work just fine.
If you really can't back up a database without a pointy-clicky GUI, you have no business being a DBA.
Mart</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28550159</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>h4rm0ny</author>
	<datestamp>1246444440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
I was about to predict some abuse coming your way, but I see it's already appeared. : /
<br> <br>
If PostgreSQL is not for you, no problem, but seriously, just using pg\_dump would be the proper way to do this and it seems a shame to change to a different database if that's the sole issue. &lt;/friendlycomment&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was about to predict some abuse coming your way , but I see it 's already appeared .
: / If PostgreSQL is not for you , no problem , but seriously , just using pg \ _dump would be the proper way to do this and it seems a shame to change to a different database if that 's the sole issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I was about to predict some abuse coming your way, but I see it's already appeared.
: /
 
If PostgreSQL is not for you, no problem, but seriously, just using pg\_dump would be the proper way to do this and it seems a shame to change to a different database if that's the sole issue. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547663</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246480140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried to use it for the project I'm currently working on, but I could not find an ultra-cheap provider (&gt;=$5/month) that had it as an option.  If anyone knows of a decent cheap host that offers PostgreSQL I would gladly switch; I signed up on a monthly plan with the hopes of being able to switch.  (Although now that I've re-written everything, it's not as imperative.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to use it for the project I 'm currently working on , but I could not find an ultra-cheap provider ( &gt; = $ 5/month ) that had it as an option .
If anyone knows of a decent cheap host that offers PostgreSQL I would gladly switch ; I signed up on a monthly plan with the hopes of being able to switch .
( Although now that I 've re-written everything , it 's not as imperative .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to use it for the project I'm currently working on, but I could not find an ultra-cheap provider (&gt;=$5/month) that had it as an option.
If anyone knows of a decent cheap host that offers PostgreSQL I would gladly switch; I signed up on a monthly plan with the hopes of being able to switch.
(Although now that I've re-written everything, it's not as imperative.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548497</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246439280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haha, yeah, you definitely answered his question. MySQL is suitable for cute wannabe "developers" who knows enough of a script language or two to be able to set up connections and send queries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha , yeah , you definitely answered his question .
MySQL is suitable for cute wannabe " developers " who knows enough of a script language or two to be able to set up connections and send queries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha, yeah, you definitely answered his question.
MySQL is suitable for cute wannabe "developers" who knows enough of a script language or two to be able to set up connections and send queries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28554131</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>Sxooter</author>
	<datestamp>1246473000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it might be worth examining the differences between the two dbs.  I've found some truly compelling things about pgsql.  Here's a short list of the things I really like about pgsql:</p><p>Transactional DDL statements. Sounds kinda trivial, but it lets you do things like alter a table, update a field, and then, if things go horribly wrong, you can roll it back.  For production updates, this can be a life saver.  In pgsql everything except create / drop database and create drop tablespace are transactable.</p><p>The CTRL-C works like it should in psql, it cancels the current command.  The fact that it exits the session in mysql's command line tool is idiotic, and should have been fixed years ago.</p><p>Fast and reliable bug fixes.  I'd say the average time a nasty bug (crash, wrong results, data corruption) is fixed is within one to two days after it's found.  There aren't a lot, but when the pg crew finds out about one, they stomp it fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it might be worth examining the differences between the two dbs .
I 've found some truly compelling things about pgsql .
Here 's a short list of the things I really like about pgsql : Transactional DDL statements .
Sounds kinda trivial , but it lets you do things like alter a table , update a field , and then , if things go horribly wrong , you can roll it back .
For production updates , this can be a life saver .
In pgsql everything except create / drop database and create drop tablespace are transactable.The CTRL-C works like it should in psql , it cancels the current command .
The fact that it exits the session in mysql 's command line tool is idiotic , and should have been fixed years ago.Fast and reliable bug fixes .
I 'd say the average time a nasty bug ( crash , wrong results , data corruption ) is fixed is within one to two days after it 's found .
There are n't a lot , but when the pg crew finds out about one , they stomp it fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it might be worth examining the differences between the two dbs.
I've found some truly compelling things about pgsql.
Here's a short list of the things I really like about pgsql:Transactional DDL statements.
Sounds kinda trivial, but it lets you do things like alter a table, update a field, and then, if things go horribly wrong, you can roll it back.
For production updates, this can be a life saver.
In pgsql everything except create / drop database and create drop tablespace are transactable.The CTRL-C works like it should in psql, it cancels the current command.
The fact that it exits the session in mysql's command line tool is idiotic, and should have been fixed years ago.Fast and reliable bug fixes.
I'd say the average time a nasty bug (crash, wrong results, data corruption) is fixed is within one to two days after it's found.
There aren't a lot, but when the pg crew finds out about one, they stomp it fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548353</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1246438920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Honestly, the more rabid and on-the-offense a community gets, the more a am suspicious of the product.</p></div><p>First, the only on-the-offense part was a list of new high-end features.  Second, it's pretty easy to become rabid when you try to tell people about your quad-turbo Ferrari dumptruck that does 0-60 in 4 seconds fully loaded and pulls 1.5g on the skidpad while getting 137 miles per gallon, but keep getting shouted down by Kia Fanbois who make fun of every feature your truck has that they don't - until they get a half-assed version of it and then act smug like they invented it.</p><p>PostgreSQL fans have <em>nothing</em> on rabid MySQL fans, I promise you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , the more rabid and on-the-offense a community gets , the more a am suspicious of the product.First , the only on-the-offense part was a list of new high-end features .
Second , it 's pretty easy to become rabid when you try to tell people about your quad-turbo Ferrari dumptruck that does 0-60 in 4 seconds fully loaded and pulls 1.5g on the skidpad while getting 137 miles per gallon , but keep getting shouted down by Kia Fanbois who make fun of every feature your truck has that they do n't - until they get a half-assed version of it and then act smug like they invented it.PostgreSQL fans have nothing on rabid MySQL fans , I promise you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, the more rabid and on-the-offense a community gets, the more a am suspicious of the product.First, the only on-the-offense part was a list of new high-end features.
Second, it's pretty easy to become rabid when you try to tell people about your quad-turbo Ferrari dumptruck that does 0-60 in 4 seconds fully loaded and pulls 1.5g on the skidpad while getting 137 miles per gallon, but keep getting shouted down by Kia Fanbois who make fun of every feature your truck has that they don't - until they get a half-assed version of it and then act smug like they invented it.PostgreSQL fans have nothing on rabid MySQL fans, I promise you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547495</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246479540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone even use mySQL when they have features like this?  The only issue I have ever had with this DB was when I was trying to connect a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net app to it and it took me a while to find a workaround.</p></div><p>Because I don't need features like this, and don't know how to use them.  At least, as far as I know, I don't need features like this.  Since I don't know how to use them, it doesn't really matter, does it?</p><p>MySQL is what I've been running for several years; I'm familiar with the software.  I use DBD::mysql in my Perl scripts; I'm sure most things would work fine if I simply switched to DBD::Pg, but would any queries need to be changed?  I have no idea.  Of course I'd need to migrate my data from MySQL to PostgreSQL; I'm not even sure of the "correct" way to migrate data from one installation of MySQL to another (copying the data files and then fixing whatever's broken usually works well enough).  Of course, I'm running a few PHP-based webapps that currently use MySQL; I don't know if it's possible to get them to work with PostgreSQL or not (switching database engines in PHP isn't as simple as it is in Perl).</p><p>I could take the time to do the research and find answers to these questions.  Or I could keep using what I know works just fine.  Maybe someday I'll have some compelling need to try PostgreSQL and see if switching is practical.  Today is not that day.</p><p>Does this answer your question?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone even use mySQL when they have features like this ?
The only issue I have ever had with this DB was when I was trying to connect a .net app to it and it took me a while to find a workaround.Because I do n't need features like this , and do n't know how to use them .
At least , as far as I know , I do n't need features like this .
Since I do n't know how to use them , it does n't really matter , does it ? MySQL is what I 've been running for several years ; I 'm familiar with the software .
I use DBD : : mysql in my Perl scripts ; I 'm sure most things would work fine if I simply switched to DBD : : Pg , but would any queries need to be changed ?
I have no idea .
Of course I 'd need to migrate my data from MySQL to PostgreSQL ; I 'm not even sure of the " correct " way to migrate data from one installation of MySQL to another ( copying the data files and then fixing whatever 's broken usually works well enough ) .
Of course , I 'm running a few PHP-based webapps that currently use MySQL ; I do n't know if it 's possible to get them to work with PostgreSQL or not ( switching database engines in PHP is n't as simple as it is in Perl ) .I could take the time to do the research and find answers to these questions .
Or I could keep using what I know works just fine .
Maybe someday I 'll have some compelling need to try PostgreSQL and see if switching is practical .
Today is not that day.Does this answer your question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone even use mySQL when they have features like this?
The only issue I have ever had with this DB was when I was trying to connect a .net app to it and it took me a while to find a workaround.Because I don't need features like this, and don't know how to use them.
At least, as far as I know, I don't need features like this.
Since I don't know how to use them, it doesn't really matter, does it?MySQL is what I've been running for several years; I'm familiar with the software.
I use DBD::mysql in my Perl scripts; I'm sure most things would work fine if I simply switched to DBD::Pg, but would any queries need to be changed?
I have no idea.
Of course I'd need to migrate my data from MySQL to PostgreSQL; I'm not even sure of the "correct" way to migrate data from one installation of MySQL to another (copying the data files and then fixing whatever's broken usually works well enough).
Of course, I'm running a few PHP-based webapps that currently use MySQL; I don't know if it's possible to get them to work with PostgreSQL or not (switching database engines in PHP isn't as simple as it is in Perl).I could take the time to do the research and find answers to these questions.
Or I could keep using what I know works just fine.
Maybe someday I'll have some compelling need to try PostgreSQL and see if switching is practical.
Today is not that day.Does this answer your question?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548647</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1246439700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In theory, I too was much in favor of PostgreSQL over MySQL, for many years, until VERY recently, when I actually got around to using it for serious projects.  Then I discovered that pgadmin on windows can't even backup a PostgreSQL server unless the versions match EXACTLY (minors as well as majors) across builds and platforms.  That's pretty insane.  I'm now worried about what other seemingly obvious issues might not have been addressed in pg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory , I too was much in favor of PostgreSQL over MySQL , for many years , until VERY recently , when I actually got around to using it for serious projects .
Then I discovered that pgadmin on windows ca n't even backup a PostgreSQL server unless the versions match EXACTLY ( minors as well as majors ) across builds and platforms .
That 's pretty insane .
I 'm now worried about what other seemingly obvious issues might not have been addressed in pg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory, I too was much in favor of PostgreSQL over MySQL, for many years, until VERY recently, when I actually got around to using it for serious projects.
Then I discovered that pgadmin on windows can't even backup a PostgreSQL server unless the versions match EXACTLY (minors as well as majors) across builds and platforms.
That's pretty insane.
I'm now worried about what other seemingly obvious issues might not have been addressed in pg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547617</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>temojen</author>
	<datestamp>1246480020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because most common web apps are only built on mySQL, because most ISPs only have mySQL, because most common web apps are only built on mySQL...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because most common web apps are only built on mySQL , because most ISPs only have mySQL , because most common web apps are only built on mySQL.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because most common web apps are only built on mySQL, because most ISPs only have mySQL, because most common web apps are only built on mySQL...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28553923</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1246469700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've always used PostgreSQL for development when the plans were to move to an enterprise class HA cluster down the road.  Usually if it worked well in PostgreSQL, things really worked well when we moved to DB2 or Oracle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've always used PostgreSQL for development when the plans were to move to an enterprise class HA cluster down the road .
Usually if it worked well in PostgreSQL , things really worked well when we moved to DB2 or Oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've always used PostgreSQL for development when the plans were to move to an enterprise class HA cluster down the road.
Usually if it worked well in PostgreSQL, things really worked well when we moved to DB2 or Oracle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28551015</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246447920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pgAdmin calls pg\_dump to backup the database, which is what is strict about ensuring the versions match (for good reason), but pgAdmin offers two options to deal with this. You can specify the path to the required version of pg\_dump (obviously, you may not be using the verion that pgAdmin ships with), or there's an option to override the pg\_dump version check.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pgAdmin calls pg \ _dump to backup the database , which is what is strict about ensuring the versions match ( for good reason ) , but pgAdmin offers two options to deal with this .
You can specify the path to the required version of pg \ _dump ( obviously , you may not be using the verion that pgAdmin ships with ) , or there 's an option to override the pg \ _dump version check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pgAdmin calls pg\_dump to backup the database, which is what is strict about ensuring the versions match (for good reason), but pgAdmin offers two options to deal with this.
You can specify the path to the required version of pg\_dump (obviously, you may not be using the verion that pgAdmin ships with), or there's an option to override the pg\_dump version check.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28551209</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>jadavis</author>
	<datestamp>1246449000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=simon.git;a=summary" title="postgresql.org">git repo</a> [postgresql.org]<br><a href="http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hot\_Standby" title="postgresql.org">Design spec</a> [postgresql.org]</p><p>This is the feature that didn't quite make it in 8.4. Look at how much effort and research went into the design. This isn't a situation where someone threw some code together; this is real design and real code by a highly reputable hacker, that answered feedback from other highly reputable hackers.</p><p>The only reason this didn't make it is that PostgreSQL has a reputation for getting things right (<i>really</i> right), and that's more important than one feature.</p><p>But try it out. If the code hasn't rotted too much, it should work fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>git repo [ postgresql.org ] Design spec [ postgresql.org ] This is the feature that did n't quite make it in 8.4 .
Look at how much effort and research went into the design .
This is n't a situation where someone threw some code together ; this is real design and real code by a highly reputable hacker , that answered feedback from other highly reputable hackers.The only reason this did n't make it is that PostgreSQL has a reputation for getting things right ( really right ) , and that 's more important than one feature.But try it out .
If the code has n't rotted too much , it should work fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>git repo [postgresql.org]Design spec [postgresql.org]This is the feature that didn't quite make it in 8.4.
Look at how much effort and research went into the design.
This isn't a situation where someone threw some code together; this is real design and real code by a highly reputable hacker, that answered feedback from other highly reputable hackers.The only reason this didn't make it is that PostgreSQL has a reputation for getting things right (really right), and that's more important than one feature.But try it out.
If the code hasn't rotted too much, it should work fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547577</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246479900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm currently stuck on mysql because Postgre has no support for connections over windows ipc pipes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm currently stuck on mysql because Postgre has no support for connections over windows ipc pipes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm currently stuck on mysql because Postgre has no support for connections over windows ipc pipes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28549607</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246442520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>PHP supports PostgreSQL its as simple as doing a global find-replace of mysql\_ with pg\_ there done. Okay a bit too simple but the mysql functions and the pg functions have the same names other than the prefixes and they behave in the same exact manner.</p></div></blockquote><p>... or you could just use <a href="http://us2.php.net/manual/en/intro.pdo.php" title="php.net">PDO</a> [php.net], the way God intended.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>PHP supports PostgreSQL its as simple as doing a global find-replace of mysql \ _ with pg \ _ there done .
Okay a bit too simple but the mysql functions and the pg functions have the same names other than the prefixes and they behave in the same exact manner.... or you could just use PDO [ php.net ] , the way God intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PHP supports PostgreSQL its as simple as doing a global find-replace of mysql\_ with pg\_ there done.
Okay a bit too simple but the mysql functions and the pg functions have the same names other than the prefixes and they behave in the same exact manner.... or you could just use PDO [php.net], the way God intended.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28567473</id>
	<title>Re:So why</title>
	<author>gullevek</author>
	<datestamp>1246547460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. The first time I tried postgresql (was 6.x version) it felt horrible complicated and not as easy as mysql. Much later when I tried it again and used it more, I realized how amazing good postgresql actually is.</p><p>Nowadays I only use postgresql and really don't look back on the mysql days. But yes, postgresql needs some time to learn, but once you know it, its a very different thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
The first time I tried postgresql ( was 6.x version ) it felt horrible complicated and not as easy as mysql .
Much later when I tried it again and used it more , I realized how amazing good postgresql actually is.Nowadays I only use postgresql and really do n't look back on the mysql days .
But yes , postgresql needs some time to learn , but once you know it , its a very different thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
The first time I tried postgresql (was 6.x version) it felt horrible complicated and not as easy as mysql.
Much later when I tried it again and used it more, I realized how amazing good postgresql actually is.Nowadays I only use postgresql and really don't look back on the mysql days.
But yes, postgresql needs some time to learn, but once you know it, its a very different thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28552279</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28554169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28551015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28551631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28553923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28551209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28553653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28550159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28549825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28552969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28554131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28567473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28552279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28552657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28549575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28556873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28549607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1831250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28555911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28552279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1831250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547831
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28553653
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548353
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28551631
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28552969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28554169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28551209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28552279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28567473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28555911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28549575
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28552657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548419
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28549607
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28556873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28554131
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28549825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548647
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28551015
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28550159
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28553923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28547663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1831250.28548311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
