Обсуждение: Re: About PostgreSQL certification
Hi Theo I find your statements about Postgres being a huge business risk pretty laughable. First of all, Postgres is based on SQL92and SQL99 standards which means that most scripts are pretty much the same compared to MSSQL and Oracle. The only thingI have seen to learn are the postgres datatypes. Big deal! PGAdmin III will write most scripts for you and that toois pretty much free. I dealt with it when we started learning and using postgres. I only had experience in Oracle andMSSQL. Also comparing Postgres to MYSQL is also pretty funny, since there are instances of MYSQL LOSING databases due to corruptionbecause they do not have PITR and their transaction rollback feature did not work properly last time I checked.This is really a issue of people being close minded to great database software and not being able to sell it to theirsuperiors. This is the way I sold postgres to my boss. It is opensource (low cost), all the features of MSSQL and then some, WAY FASTERthan MSSQL on a BSD platform, very good recovery when the database gets corrupted (this happens to all databases fromuser error usually), and lastly you can always migrate the data to another database if you don't like postgres in theend. John Zubac -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Theo Schlossnagle Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:20 PM To: Joshua D. Drake Cc: Theo Schlossnagle; Mark Kirkwood; David Fetter; Iannsp; PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [HACKERS] About PostgreSQL certification On Jan 23, 2007, at 5:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Get a CCIE and tell me that again :-) When you are handed a >> complicated >> network of routers and switches running all sorts of version of >> IOS and >> CatOS and you go to lunch, they break it and you have a certain time >> allotment to fix it all. >> >> Most certifications are not simple multiple choice quizes. Just the >> ones you hear about -- the ones that suck. >> >>> I think seeing relevant training courses + experience on a CV trumps >>> certification anytime - unfortunately a lot of folks out there are >>> mesmerized by shiny certificates.... >> >> Sure. But experience is very hard to get. And since people with >> PostgreSQL experience are limited, companies adopting it need a good >> second option -- certified people. > > They aren't limited, just all employed ;) I can't find 500, let alone 1000, people with extensive postgresql experience in an enterprise environment. Oracle has an order of magnitude more. MySQL even has better numbers than postgres in this arena. If you only want to hire people with extensive experience, you're exposing yourself to an enormous business risk by adopting postgres. You'd have to hire out to a consulting company and if too many do that, the consulting company will have scaling issues (as all do). The upside of Oracle is that I can hire out to a consulting company for some things (particularly challenging scale or recovery issues) and get someone who knows their way around Oracle reasonably well (has performed _real_ disaster recovery in a hands on fashion, performed hands-on query tuning, database sizing exercises, etc.) by simply finding someone who is Oracle certified (all of those things are part of the Oracle certification process). Granted, just because someone is certified doesn't mean they "fit" or will excel at the problems you give them -- it's just a nice lower bar. Granted you can make a name for yourself as an expert without getting a certification, but if you've made a name for yourself, you aren't likely to be on the job market -- which is really my point. Oracle's certification programs have helped Oracle considerably in gaining the number of Oracle professionals in the job market. PostgreSQL certification has the opportunity to do the same and in doing so increase overall PostgreSQL adoption. That's a good thing. -- Theo // Theo Schlossnagle // CTO -- http://www.omniti.com/~jesus/ // OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. -- http://www.omniti.com/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.orgso that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
On Jan 24, 2007, at 9:50 AM, John Zubac wrote: > I find your statements about Postgres being a huge business risk > pretty laughable. First of all, Postgres is based on SQL92 and > SQL99 standards which means that most scripts are pretty much the > same compared to MSSQL and Oracle. The only thing I have seen to > learn are the postgres datatypes. Big deal! PGAdmin III will write > most scripts for you and that too is pretty much free. I dealt with > it when we started learning and using postgres. I only had > experience in Oracle and MSSQL. If that's the only thing you had to learn, we aren't talking about the same risks. Datatypes are developer level differences. Tuning, sizing, disaster recovery planning, backups, differences in or lack of enterprise features and integration -- these are all very different between databases and fundamental to operating it in an enterprise environment. You can laugh if you like. I don't laugh about these things, neither do our clients. Many have decided to run postgres and that decision was a good one. Many do not and their decisions were also wise. Several people at the dayjob, including me, travel and speak on postgres, database replication, large architecture management, open source, etc. We promote postgres in many venues. I said: "If you only want to hire people with extensive experience, you're exposing yourself to an enormous business risk by adopting postgres." There simple aren't that many people that have extensive experience. So you you are hinging the success of your business of one of those people being available, it _is_ an enormous business risk. My arguments here are not against postgres, they are for training and certification -- both help dramatically increase the pool of people with sufficient experience. > Also comparing Postgres to MYSQL is also pretty funny, since there > are instances of MYSQL LOSING databases due to corruption because > they do not have PITR and their transaction rollback feature did > not work properly last time I checked. This is really a issue of > people being close minded to great database software and not being > able to sell it to their superiors. It's not funny at all. Just like comparing PostgreSQL to Apache isn't funny (Covalent did spectacular things legitimizing the use of Apache in the global 2000). The fact that MySQL has lost data is not germane to the discussion. There have been bugs in PostgreSQL as well. And there has been data loss with PostgreSQL and Oracle and MSSQL. We're talking about business risks due to resource availability in the job market capable of managing postgresql in an enterprise environment. And was stating that solid certification programs can and will increase the availability of those resources and reduce the risks in adopting postgres as a solution. I, along with most of the people in the community, believe in PostgreSQL, believe in the direction development is going in and want to see adoption increase. > This is the way I sold postgres to my boss. It is opensource (low > cost), all the features of MSSQL and then some, WAY FASTER than > MSSQL on a BSD platform, very good recovery when the database gets > corrupted (this happens to all databases from user error usually), > and lastly you can always migrate the data to another database if > you don't like postgres in the end. I have no problem representing the positive aspects of postgres. I am also not blind to its shortcomings. We manage one of the larger postgres instances out there -- I know its pros and cons well. // Theo Schlossnagle // CTO -- http://www.omniti.com/~jesus/ // OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. -- http://www.omniti.com/
>> Also comparing Postgres to MYSQL is also pretty funny, since there are >> instances of MYSQL LOSING databases due to corruption because they do >> not have PITR and their transaction rollback feature did not work >> properly last time I checked. This is really a issue of people being >> close minded to great database software and not being able to sell it >> to their superiors. > > It's not funny at all. Just like comparing PostgreSQL to Apache isn't > funny (Covalent did spectacular things legitimizing the use of Apache in > the global 2000). The fact that MySQL has lost data is not germane to This is the point of this thread that I think people are severely missing. (Covalent did spectacular things legitimizing the use of Apache in the global 2000) It is also about my point that Theo and I share different markets. In Theo's world his arguments are 100% correct, imo. I would garner that less than 1% of the PostgreSQL experts out there can speak to the global 2000 requirements. The global 2000 includes people like GM, Wal-Mart and Sony. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/18/06f2000_The-Forbes-2000_Rank.html These organizations have diverse and extreme requirements that only some of us have ever even been exposed to. Case in point, one of my customers recently spoke to me about moving a critical system to PostgreSQL. This system, if down will cost the customer several million (that is 7 digits) an hour. How many on this thread can honestly say that they have a clue what type of business volume that is? Sincerely, Johsua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/