Quoting Ben <bench@silentmedia.com>:
> Yes, I don't understand why people seem to keep complaining about
> Postgres' documentation - it is by far the best reference documentation
> I've ever come across.
>
> Maybe it's that there isn't much tutorial content in the documentation -
> for somebody trying to learn how to do SQL in the first place, it's not
> going to hold your hand and I could see how that will turn off newbies.
>
I agree - it is very clear and complete. I do think that tutorials will help.
Tutorials being -
1. Basic SQL (one must understand that if you want your product to go forward
you have to teach some basic fundamentals - again no barrier to entry =
(usually) no formal training)
2. General Tutorials (see above)
3. Advanced Usage Tutorials (see above, again)
Acceptance of PG could be greatly accelerated by more:
1. small projects using PG as a backend (as stated in previous thread post)
2. documenation coming from multiple sources. Don't ask me to explain why, but
one seems to equate robustness, usability, etc... with the more titles one
sees. If you go to Barnes and Noble's and look there for DB books you see the
wall of red (Oracle books), black (M$oft), blue (MySQL). I simply point out
that perception being as it is - PG is not there. I am trying to learn more and
more about it to remedy my newcomer understanding of PG. Do not read this as if
I am a newbie to DB's; I am not ignorant.
I talk of perception - if you get PG into the hands of more newbies and make
them feel good you have a viral marketing strategy that costs you no $. I fell
for it years ago with MySQL, but I have since learned. Now that I have Oracle
experience as a reference I see MySQL as lacking and trying to hoodwink me.
Most never make it out of the cloud.