the install of the postgresql is easy
but the setup after that install is quite hard
the pgadmin app is all except nice user friendly, and full of bugs (at least on the mac os)
you’ve better edit some text files in the terminal to really do what you want
so NO full install of postgresql server is not for the end user.
Where can I find this sale?
Thanks in advance?
[quote=246818:@Jens Knaack]Where can I find this sale?
Thanks in advance?[/quote]
Thank you for the quick answer.
(The questionmark after “Thanks in advance” was a typo.)
No idea
I’ve used just about all of those at least once and never had any issues
[quote=246824:@Norman Palardy]No idea
I’ve used just about all of those at least once and never had any issues[/quote]
Anyone (or just about anyone) can click Next, Next, Next,… Done
but the next few (or more depending on the database) steps to actually get it up and running is the problem. DBAs have a clue. Database savy Developers have a clue. Other techies have a smaller but still have a clue. Non-Techies dont have a clue. Last time I setup PostgreSQL, I had to have someone help me with the steps AFTER the done button. And I am database (semi-)knowledgeable dev. Just not PostgreSQL savy.
PGadmin didn’t used to be able to assist with the “after” like editing pgconf etc
You can do that now which eases things a ton
The cost of the database is one thing, the cost of deploying another.
I’m not quite sure what the special offer of CubeSQL actually contains. You get a server with unlimited connections for $99 - great. But that doesn’t mean you can give the server to all your users, does it? There is another page with the deployment costs (as far as I understand thats for servers to give to your users) and depending on how many connections you need that is between $1,500 and $9,000 per year.
Then there is the question of database administration. For my users they might be able to use a Filemaker server, but PostGres is beyond them (and I’m certainly not qualified to offer support). So while PostGres is powerful and free, for many usage scenarios it is unsuitable. CubeSQL is great but too expensive for my needs - which means for me using SQLite and writing my own server is the only practical solution.
Based on this statement, I would agree with others on CubeSQL.
Markus,
we are not talking about your users… the conversation is about his 
[quote=246837:@Markus Winter]
Then there is the question of database administration. For my users they might be able to use a Filemaker server, but PostGres is beyond them (and I’m certainly not qualified to offer support). So while PostGres is powerful and free, for many usage scenarios it is unsuitable. CubeSQL is great but too expensive for my needs - which means for me using SQLite and writing my own server is the only practical solution.[/quote]
You’ll have a bit of a tough time writing a decent enough server otherwise
- you cant leverage any of the db plugins and have to write your own communications layer
- if you dont write it in something low like C/ C++ you cant make use of some of the very low level API’s sqlite provides that will let you write a server that will remain responsive - ie/ you’ll have a server that is solely cooperatively threaded and this may be unsuitable under load
- you’ll have to come up with your own implementation of concurrency control as there is nothing built in to sqlite
These are NOT trivial issues - Marco’s spent a LOT of time sorting them out to get CubeSQL to where it is today
And for Raphael’s user PostgreSQL may be perfect
No doubt about that. But that argument goes both ways. Nobody mentioned cost of deployment so far. And as nobody knows how many users he has or how much money he is going to make cost of deployment might be a major factor.
If you look at Raphael’s posts then you’ll notice that he is new to Xojo and clearly worried about both cost and database usage (his background is Filemaker).
So I would argue I’m making a valid point.
It is obvious that Xojo itself changed direction and is going for the professional market. And it’s great that our professional users make enough money and are experienced enough that costs of a few thousand dollar is not something that needs to concern them. But PLEASE consider what the poster actually wrote before dismissing my point out of hand.
That strongly depends on the requirements. My typical user is a small group of 8-20 people, not very computer literate (so forget database administration), with low demands on the database.
1 isn’t that difficult, 2 doesn’t apply, 3 is the most complex but doable for my situation.
And I neither deny that is is an excellent piece of software (better than anything I could ever come up with) nor that it is the best solution for many users.
My point is that everyone is telling Raphael what he should use without really knowing his requirements, and not giving him the full picture (he might not even have been aware of deployment costs) while at the same time I get berated for giving my point of view for a different usage scenario.
Or it may not be. I don’t know, and neither do you. And who is doing database maintenance or answers database related support questions? Remember, his background is Filemaker!
the only way out is to make a xojo db filemaker plugin !
@Jean-Yves Pochez : yuck. Filemaker is barely useable. It’s crashy, it’s slow. The pace of development is glacially slow.
I don’t like filemaker too… 
but I prefer new customers to have an ugly filemaker database to upgrade, than customers with excel sheets !
Beatrix, Jean-Yves, about FileMaker:
I used it (20 years ago), but I do not recall bad things about it.
The only explanation I got is that other DB have evolved to the point FileMaker gaves this bad feeling ?
[quote=246837:@Markus Winter]The cost of the database is one thing, the cost of deploying another.
I’m not quite sure what the special offer of CubeSQL actually contains. You get a server with unlimited connections for $99 - great. But that doesn’t mean you can give the server to all your users, does it? There is another page with the deployment costs (as far as I understand thats for servers to give to your users) and depending on how many connections you need that is between $1,500 and $9,000 per year.[/quote]
I am quite sure, you can also buy and resell one licence of CubeSQL for every single customer. And a customer who needs unlimited connections should be able to pay additional 599,00.
@Jean-Yves Pochez : fully agree. Or even worse Sharepoint.
An alternative to CubeSQL is Valentina Server using SQLite as database engine. Installing Valentina is not too complicated. Some administration is required for all database servers.
Markus is correct about the pricing. CubeSQL is waaaayyyyyy more expensive than Valentina.
In this case you could have you client running on CubeSql for as little as a one off charge as low as $150 or so! Yes the distribution license is an option as you mentioned, but it is not the only option.
You could require your client to buy and install CubeSql as a prerequisite for using your software or you could even include CubeSql in your install, but require the client to provide their own license key. Either way I do not see cost to be as big a barrier as you suggest.
When it comes to installation and operation I feel that CubeSql is in the same league as any other piece of office software business users would be expected to work with. In addition to which you can incorporate most of the administration tasks into your application as the api is exposed to you.
I really feel you are creating high barriers that are in reality very low.