Right, on Lion client. The big problem is the change in the way the postgres
user is set up. Evidently, it existed as 'postgres' on older versions, but it
is now '_postgres' with no shell.
Ramsey
On Aug 6, 2011, at 10:51 PM, Johan Henselmans wrote:
>
> Op 7 aug. 2011, om 06:37 heeft Ramsey G
Op 7 aug. 2011, om 06:37 heeft Ramsey Gurley het volgende geschreven:
> Not entirely fine…
>
> Just in case anyone is trying to install Postgres on a clean install of Lion,
> you'll hit a snag at the very end of the installer that prevents the creation
> of the initial database and installatio
Not entirely fine…
Just in case anyone is trying to install Postgres on a clean install of Lion,
you'll hit a snag at the very end of the installer that prevents the creation
of the initial database and installation of the apps in /Applications. Until
the Postgres people fix this in their inst
On Jul 30, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
> To do it correctly it would be a property (I think) as it assumes you've used
> MySQLs default of case-insensitiveness which is probably true for most people
> but perhaps not all.
Well, when you put it that way, yeah, you're both right (^_^)
To do it correctly it would be a property (I think) as it assumes you've used
MySQLs default of case-insensitiveness which is probably true for most people
but perhaps not all.
I didn't get around to contributing it last year after contributing the
H2Plugin as others like Ramsey were working on
The changes in PostgreSQL 9 allow for "hot standby" databases, which are
running and allow read-only access and can instantly become stand-alone
masters if failover is needed. You can have many standby DBs being fed by
one master with little performance degradation. The slaves are updated
asynchr
Hi,
Postgresql introduced built-in decent replication (master-slave) in version
9. I never used it, by according to what I read about it, seems it was done the
way it should be.
Regards
Miguel Arroz
On 29/07/2011, at 03:54, Lachlan Deck wrote:
> What are the replication possibilities the
I don't think it would be a property. That would just be the correct behavior.
I wasn't aware of such syntax when I wrote the initial MySQL plugin for wonder,
or I would have certainly included this. I dug through the manual trying to
solve this problem but never found the answer.
I don't use
Am 29.07.2011 um 12:54 schrieb Lachlan Deck:
> What are the replication possibilities these days for dbs such as Postgres et
> al?
> Part of the success of MySQL I gather is having this support.
>
> We unfortunately use MySQL where I'm working, and it certainly struggles for
> certain things.
What are the replication possibilities these days for dbs such as Postgres et
al?
Part of the success of MySQL I gather is having this support.
We unfortunately use MySQL where I'm working, and it certainly struggles for
certain things. One of the things that kills mysql as well is refactoring o
Realistically, it is too late for WO to penetrate that space. The combination Oracle controlling Java, the current love affair with weak typed scripting platforms like node.js and academia's love of doing things the purist way instead of pragmatic means that academic trained programmers will forev
Greetings James,
I tend to agree, but there are somethings that MySQL had going for them. Most
notably, they were able to get academia to tell just about every student to
build a web page with PHP and MySQL. They even had them recommending the two
of those in book after book. Something that
All great wealth has a slight illegitimate origin.
Cheers
On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:13 PM, Q wrote:
> If you want a bit of history about MySQL you won't read on Wikipedia, here is
> the backstory:
>
> Back in 1993 there were no free lightweight SQL servers. The first one to
> appear was mSQL*
Just to get the last word in ;-) …….
In fairness though, _my_ user experience with MySQL 5.1 using InnoDB Plugin
1.0.x on Linux 12-core 48GB RAID server with databases of ~40GB and having a
number of tables between 10 and 70 million rows has been a very good experience
in terms of performance
I'll give you really scary, in 1995 I was hosting a commercial website on a
win95 box that had been butchered to run a cgi scripting engine in VB. To make
matters worse, the DB was MSSQL 1.0 running on a MS OS/2 1.3 server ( IBM
Microchannel PS/2 ). All I can say is that it worked. To this day,
Ah yes, I remember that we had mSQL hosting (on Solaris 2.5!) at an ISP I was
working for in 1996 to 2000, and I remember the discussions about how much code
MySQL stole from mSQL.
Not trust me, nothing was worse than the Access/NT/ASP combo, or even worse OS
8.6/WebStar/FMP 4.1 (with the Web S
I had heard most of this, but some of the detail is fascinating to hear from
the msql side.
Andy 'Dru' Satori - all typos courtesy of fat finger and an iPad
On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Q wrote:
> If you want a bit of history about MySQL you won't read on Wikipedia, here is
> the backstory:
>
Beware PostgreSQL is faster than MySQL on the Mac, but the Mac is by far, the
worst performing PostgreSQL host. The shared memory implementation is not well
suited to the Mac, and when push comes to shove, pg exposes those weaknesses.
PostgreSQL performs best on Linux. It works on OS x. If an
If you want a bit of history about MySQL you won't read on Wikipedia, here is
the backstory:
Back in 1993 there were no free lightweight SQL servers. The first one to
appear was mSQL* (aka miniSQL), which wasn't technically open source, but it
was free for non commercial use, and distributed as
Cool! I actually used macports to build /install PostgreSQL today.
Regards, Kieran.
(Sent from my iPhone)
On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:07 PM, Q wrote:
> 650 million rows, 230Gig, growth rate of ~20 rows/sec, ~5 queries/sec
> MySQL = KaBoom! :(
> PostgreSQL = Mostly idle.
>
> MySQL is fine for simple
650 million rows, 230Gig, growth rate of ~20 rows/sec, ~5 queries/sec
MySQL = KaBoom! :(
PostgreSQL = Mostly idle.
MySQL is fine for simple queries and datasets that don't need lots of IO. For
complex queries, or very large datasets MySQL's index handling and query
planner are garbage, but that'
Finding a weak spot in the query optimizer can be done for any database,
can't it? That's just the nature of the beast.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
> Good detail. Thanks for the insight. And yeah, it was obvious from the
> beginning that you loathed MySQL! ;-)
>
> Ch
Even more than I do! :-P
On 2011-07-27, at 12:22 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
> Good detail. Thanks for the insight. And yeah, it was obvious from the
> beginning that you loathed MySQL! ;-)
>
> Cheers, Kieran
>
> On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Andrew Satori wrote:
>
>>
>> You asked, about row
Good detail. Thanks for the insight. And yeah, it was obvious from the
beginning that you loathed MySQL! ;-)
Cheers, Kieran
On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Andrew Satori wrote:
>
> You asked, about rows and columns so I answered. I know what killed it. I
> know why. I know what I could have
for that matter neither can MSSQL, they both use select top ## * syntax instead
of limit :D
On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote:
>
> On Jul 27, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Andrew Satori wrote:
>
>> I've been down this path a few times with several platforms. MySQL,
>> OpenBase, MSSQL, Or
On Jul 27, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Andrew Satori wrote:
> I've been down this path a few times with several platforms. MySQL,
> OpenBase, MSSQL, Oracle, Informix, Sybase, DB/2, and PostgreSQL to name a few
> (I have only used FrontBase for prototyping so I have no deployment
> experience with it a
You asked, about rows and columns so I answered. I know what killed it. I
know why. I know what I could have done to prevent it and work around it. The
net result is that in order to get the performance I needed, I was going to
have to alter things to be MySQL specific, rather than the stan
I find it hard to believe that such a table would cause MySQL to fall over.
Possibly your engine selection, /etc/my.cnf and/or hardware/memory allocations
might not have been appropriate in the setup that failed to meet your
expectations. I found this book helped a few years back when I got star
roughly 20 million rows in a table with ~120 columns in the table.
On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
> Hi Andrew.
>
> What exactly was the scale/size of your MySQL database that caused it to fall
> over? Row count? (Row count x field count) max?
>
> Regards, Kieran.
> (Sent
+1
Jérémy
Le 27 juil. 2011 à 07:58, Mike Schrag a écrit :
> Rule #1 of not being Google, Twitter, or Facebook: You're not Google,
> Twitter, or Facebook. Rule #2: you never will be. Embrace your newfound
> freedom and use whatever database you want.
>
> ms
>
> On Jul 26, 2011, at 10:14 PM, K
Rule #1 of not being Google, Twitter, or Facebook: You're not Google, Twitter,
or Facebook. Rule #2: you never will be. Embrace your newfound freedom and use
whatever database you want.
ms
On Jul 26, 2011, at 10:14 PM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
> Hi Andrew.
>
> What exactly was the scale/size o
Hi Andrew.
What exactly was the scale/size of your MySQL database that caused it to fall
over? Row count? (Row count x field count) max?
Regards, Kieran.
(Sent from my iPhone)
On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Satori wrote:
> To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get
To a degree, but if you have committed to the MySQL way to get past it's core
weaknesses, you have also made transitioning to anything else very very hard.
In the case of Facebook, they have hit the wall where the front end is still
scaling, but the backend is not. It is so wedded to it's MySQ
FWIW, once you reach that level scaling on *anything* is hard.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:02 AM, d...@druware.com wrote:
> Well, the issue I have in general is that the market seems to have adopted a
> MySQL or commercial mindset. MySQL is, to put it mildly, a trap. Skipping
Well, the issue I have in general is that the market seems to have adopted a MySQL or commercial mindset. MySQL is, to put it mildly, a trap. Skipping over the license issues, and going straight to the real stuff, MySQL has been shown repeatedly to have very real and finite limits on growth and s
FrontBase is pretty quiet these days too, though the dev list does see some
traffic and there are new releases. Marketing a proprietary SQL database these
days is swimming upstream, you can't expect wide success. FrontBase fills a
niche market, of which WO is probably less and less every year.
Now that right there IS funny. But if no one were on the list to see that and
laugh, then I'd have to develop in something other than WO. :-)
Tim Worman
UCLA GSE&IS
On Jul 25, 2011, at 8:36 PM, John Huss wrote:
> I don't know what I would do if I was using some proprietary technology that
>
ROFLAMO!
On 2011-07-25, at 8:36 PM, John Huss wrote:
> I don't know what I would do if I was using some proprietary technology that
> hadn't been updated in years, with almost no communication from the company
> in charge of it! What is that like? ;-)
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM,
I don't know what I would do if I was using some proprietary technology that
hadn't been updated in years, with almost no communication from the company
in charge of it! What is that like? ;-)
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Tim Worman wrote:
> Openbase has been a great product from day one
el.beatty=navy@lists.apple.com
>> [mailto:webobjects-dev-bounces+daniel.beatty=navy@lists.apple.com] On
>> Behalf Of Tim Worman
>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 17:03
>> To: Ramsey Gurley
>> Cc: WebObjects Development
>> Subject: Re: Lion and
;
> -Original Message-
> From: webobjects-dev-bounces+daniel.beatty=navy@lists.apple.com
> [mailto:webobjects-dev-bounces+daniel.beatty=navy@lists.apple.com] On
> Behalf Of Tim Worman
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 17:03
> To: Ramsey Gurley
> Cc: WebObjects Dev
: webobjects-dev-bounces+daniel.beatty=navy@lists.apple.com
[mailto:webobjects-dev-bounces+daniel.beatty=navy@lists.apple.com] On
Behalf Of Tim Worman
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 17:03
To: Ramsey Gurley
Cc: WebObjects Development
Subject: Re: Lion and WO
No, I've been using Openbase for a long
No, I've been using Openbase for a long time. I'm probably going to have to
make a move though since there seems to be very little activity around the
product.
There's a tweet mentioning a beta release for Lion:
http://twitter.com/#!/OpenBase/statuses/90781766431936512
Tim Worman
UCLA GSE&IS
PostgreSQL is just fine in lion
Andy 'Dru' Satori - all typos courtesy of fat finger and an iPad
On Jul 25, 2011, at 7:15 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote:
> Postgresql?
>
> On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Tim Worman wrote:
>
>> The only problem I had was that I had to use Direct Connect in Lion -
>> p
Postgresql?
On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Tim Worman wrote:
> The only problem I had was that I had to use Direct Connect in Lion -
> probably a config problem somewhere. I'm stuck in Snow Leopard for dev right
> now since my current database doesn't install in Lion.
>
> Tim Worman
> UCLA GSE&
The only problem I had was that I had to use Direct Connect in Lion - probably
a config problem somewhere. I'm stuck in Snow Leopard for dev right now since
my current database doesn't install in Lion.
Tim Worman
UCLA GSE&IS
On Jul 20, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
> yes, long ago ..
Ah yes, I forgot. You have to change the wotaskd and JavaMonitor launchd
scripts so that the user is "_appserver", not "appserver" (in the script, not
for the owner of the script), if you don't do it, they won't be started.
> On Jul 20, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
>
>> Just before
oh, rub it in.
On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Paul D Yu wrote:
> SSD makes the process go really fast. Spinning disk? not so much...
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lis
I've upgraded my primary client development machine and it works just fine.
Upgrading the second one now.
SSD makes the process go really fast. Spinning disk? not so much...
Paul
On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Simon wrote:
> what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ?
>
> On 20
yes, long ago .. works fine.
On Jul 20, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Simon wrote:
> what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ?
>
> On 20 July 2011 16:32, Pascal Robert wrote:
>> Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini
>> Server and the Wonder variants of wo
what about upgrading a dev machine - anyone braved it yet ?
On 20 July 2011 16:32, Pascal Robert wrote:
> Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini Server
> and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache WO adaptor
> compiles correctly too. But Ja
So far I've encountered Wonder bar stops working after taking Safari to full
screen.
And for those who use sqlplus to connect to ORACLE at the command line you get
"Segmentation fault: 11". I searched google and others are having the same
problem but I don't see a fix by ORACLE.
On Jul 20
Nice... :-)
Thanks for letting us all know.
--
Joel M. Benisch CPCU, President
973-992-6300 x303
PaperFree Corporation
and then all else was groovy?
On Jul 20, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Pascal Robert wrote:
> Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini Server
> and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache WO adaptor
> compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installe
Just before people start asking. I installed Lion Server on a Mac Mini Server
and the Wonder variants of wotaskd and Monitor works well. Apache WO adaptor
compiles correctly too. But Java is not pre-installed, so just start any Java
process (a simple call to /usr/bin/java will do) and Finder wil
55 matches
Mail list logo
