Boat fishing such a rip off

Wduaqnug

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2002
3,249
0
0
I finally decided to try it. from 12pm to 3:30pm $24 . Instead of deep sea it took us to place near shore. Out of 11 guys only 2 caught one fish. I saw guys on the shore rocks catching more than we did. First and last experience
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,378
8,127
126
It's not the fishy's fault you suck at fishing.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Did you use Spunky for bait?

Seriously though, I've been deep sea fishing & caught a freaking 80 kilo sailfish, thought he was going to kill me reeling him in. I was going to set him free & the kids helping us beat him to death with beer bottles before I could say anything:(
 

yoda291

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
5,079
0
0
Originally posted by: human2k
The syntax from the command line is much more difficult in psql starting out----but it's easy to get used to. Personally, I've used both MySQL and Postgres gui tools (almost all of them) and I always end up going back to the command shell. That's how I learned em both, and they're my favorite. phpmyadmin and the same tool for postgres work well though through a web interface.

As far as comparing MySQL to a true RDBMS, in the real world there is NO comparison. MySQL doesn't enforce the Atomicity of transactions, nor does it support row level locking ( a default setting in MsSQL and Oracle), nor does it support SPs or Triggers.

Mysql also has a 4GB DB Size limitation and Postgres has a 64 GB limitation as of the last versions I used.

If you're using Mysql or Postgres in a multi-user environment where multiple reads/writes can be committed to the database----you'll have to write your own mechanism for locking records to avoid writing collisions.

Pre Mysql 4.0 the biggest difference between Mysql and Postgres was the lack of support for foreign keys in Mysql. While you can still use Lookup records in much the same way---mysql doesn't enforce an once of a DB Model on the DB Side. If you have a "related" table in MYSQL there's nothing preventing you from inserting a dubious record in your lookup field other then your own code.

Postgres does do the job of handling foreign keys fairly well, and it does allow for user defined functions. However----on larger databases---like the last project I worked on with it we had a 15 GB db, the performance differential is very noticeable. I've lost my timing chart that I created for Posgres vs MSSql on that project---but in some cases with multiple inserts and deletes with cascading constraints----Postgres was 300% to 400% slower. [edit] ON massive updates with multiple join queries to the reporting tables (all dynaically created on each call of a report) postgres was sometimes 2000% - 3000% slower. Granted---that was an unfair test for postgres as the entire process involved a table delete by key, multiple query build to temp recordset, followed by a massive row by row insert. I could have really kicked postrgres's arse w/ MSSql if I had moved that code to all Sp's and triggers---but I just tested it from a web client keeping all the recordsets local to the web server. It was also an unfair test in the way that the reports worked too---they weren't being pulled from SPs...but on large reports, the Crystal Engine had to pull all of the results for each report, and then pull each subreport results as well----and the crystal pull is multi-threaded....so even the rendering favored MSSQL in that case.......

But---all in all----there are clear cases where Mysql is a good alternative. And cases as well where Postgres fits the bill. THe company I was at was a non-profit company, and they saved a buttload using Postgres instead of a true RDBMS----but a year after I left they convert4ed to oracle b/c the database size & the performance drop-down was too much for the 40 or so users to deal with.

Wow...you're SO in the wrong thread.

Boat fishing only sux if you go on one of those charters with people who don't know wtf they're doing and you're not sure what you wanna fish for. If you wanted deep sea fishin, spend the money to get someone to take you to tuna waters. If you just wanted some easy fishing, rent/buy your own boat and ask the bait shop guy where a good place to be is. Plus, you started right around the time when lots of people pack up and go home from fishing. Gotta be early.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Ummm you're missing the point of fishing/hunting. It's not the cost/what game you get but cost/experiance. I have gone fishing with my friends/bothers/etc, and had some of the best times catching nothing other than a good joke and a sun tan.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,422
8
81
Originally posted by: human2k
The syntax from the command line is much more difficult in psql starting out----but it's easy to get used to. Personally, I've used both MySQL and Postgres gui tools (almost all of them) and I always end up going back to the command shell. That's how I learned em both, and they're my favorite. phpmyadmin and the same tool for postgres work well though through a web interface.

As far as comparing MySQL to a true RDBMS, in the real world there is NO comparison. MySQL doesn't enforce the Atomicity of transactions, nor does it support row level locking ( a default setting in MsSQL and Oracle), nor does it support SPs or Triggers.

Mysql also has a 4GB DB Size limitation and Postgres has a 64 GB limitation as of the last versions I used.

If you're using Mysql or Postgres in a multi-user environment where multiple reads/writes can be committed to the database----you'll have to write your own mechanism for locking records to avoid writing collisions.

Pre Mysql 4.0 the biggest difference between Mysql and Postgres was the lack of support for foreign keys in Mysql. While you can still use Lookup records in much the same way---mysql doesn't enforce an once of a DB Model on the DB Side. If you have a "related" table in MYSQL there's nothing preventing you from inserting a dubious record in your lookup field other then your own code.

Postgres does do the job of handling foreign keys fairly well, and it does allow for user defined functions. However----on larger databases---like the last project I worked on with it we had a 15 GB db, the performance differential is very noticeable. I've lost my timing chart that I created for Posgres vs MSSql on that project---but in some cases with multiple inserts and deletes with cascading constraints----Postgres was 300% to 400% slower. [edit] ON massive updates with multiple join queries to the reporting tables (all dynaically created on each call of a report) postgres was sometimes 2000% - 3000% slower. Granted---that was an unfair test for postgres as the entire process involved a table delete by key, multiple query build to temp recordset, followed by a massive row by row insert. I could have really kicked postrgres's arse w/ MSSql if I had moved that code to all Sp's and triggers---but I just tested it from a web client keeping all the recordsets local to the web server. It was also an unfair test in the way that the reports worked too---they weren't being pulled from SPs...but on large reports, the Crystal Engine had to pull all of the results for each report, and then pull each subreport results as well----and the crystal pull is multi-threaded....so even the rendering favored MSSQL in that case.......

But---all in all----there are clear cases where Mysql is a good alternative. And cases as well where Postgres fits the bill. THe company I was at was a non-profit company, and they saved a buttload using Postgres instead of a true RDBMS----but a year after I left they convert4ed to oracle b/c the database size & the performance drop-down was too much for the 40 or so users to deal with.

Hmmm..... LOL
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I have one shotgun which costs more than all the meat we eat in a year. You will always loose money even buying the cheapest zepco rod and reel set from K-mart and fishing from a float tube.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,378
8,127
126
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
I have one shotgun which costs more than all the meat we eat in a year. You will always loose money even buying the cheapest zepco rod and reel set from K-mart and fishing from a float tube.

Ummm yeah. I'm going to have to disagree there. I could buy a $25 zebco rod and reel from walmart and $2.00 in jelly jigs, and another $5.00 for a fishing license and fish for a good 6-8 months out of the year from the shore at little farm ponds. On a good day I'll walk away with 2-3 pounds of filleted meat. All I have to do is catch this amount 10 times and I've already outdone 10 boxes worth of gordons or van de camps fish sticks or whatever.

I can also buy a $120 20 guage from walmart and a box of $10 shells, and $50 in licenses in tags and walk away with hundreds of dollars of deer, pheasant, and quail meat per year...depending on how I want to process it.
 

cressida

Platinum Member
Sep 10, 2000
2,839
1
81
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: human2k
The syntax from the command line is much more difficult in psql starting out----but it's easy to get used to. Personally, I've used both MySQL and Postgres gui tools (almost all of them) and I always end up going back to the command shell. That's how I learned em both, and they're my favorite. phpmyadmin and the same tool for postgres work well though through a web interface.

As far as comparing MySQL to a true RDBMS, in the real world there is NO comparison. MySQL doesn't enforce the Atomicity of transactions, nor does it support row level locking ( a default setting in MsSQL and Oracle), nor does it support SPs or Triggers.

Mysql also has a 4GB DB Size limitation and Postgres has a 64 GB limitation as of the last versions I used.

If you're using Mysql or Postgres in a multi-user environment where multiple reads/writes can be committed to the database----you'll have to write your own mechanism for locking records to avoid writing collisions.

Pre Mysql 4.0 the biggest difference between Mysql and Postgres was the lack of support for foreign keys in Mysql. While you can still use Lookup records in much the same way---mysql doesn't enforce an once of a DB Model on the DB Side. If you have a "related" table in MYSQL there's nothing preventing you from inserting a dubious record in your lookup field other then your own code.

Postgres does do the job of handling foreign keys fairly well, and it does allow for user defined functions. However----on larger databases---like the last project I worked on with it we had a 15 GB db, the performance differential is very noticeable. I've lost my timing chart that I created for Posgres vs MSSql on that project---but in some cases with multiple inserts and deletes with cascading constraints----Postgres was 300% to 400% slower. [edit] ON massive updates with multiple join queries to the reporting tables (all dynaically created on each call of a report) postgres was sometimes 2000% - 3000% slower. Granted---that was an unfair test for postgres as the entire process involved a table delete by key, multiple query build to temp recordset, followed by a massive row by row insert. I could have really kicked postrgres's arse w/ MSSql if I had moved that code to all Sp's and triggers---but I just tested it from a web client keeping all the recordsets local to the web server. It was also an unfair test in the way that the reports worked too---they weren't being pulled from SPs...but on large reports, the Crystal Engine had to pull all of the results for each report, and then pull each subreport results as well----and the crystal pull is multi-threaded....so even the rendering favored MSSQL in that case.......

But---all in all----there are clear cases where Mysql is a good alternative. And cases as well where Postgres fits the bill. THe company I was at was a non-profit company, and they saved a buttload using Postgres instead of a true RDBMS----but a year after I left they convert4ed to oracle b/c the database size & the performance drop-down was too much for the 40 or so users to deal with.

Hmmm..... LOL

I think he's done that before :)

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: vi_edit
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
I have one shotgun which costs more than all the meat we eat in a year. You will always loose money even buying the cheapest zepco rod and reel set from K-mart and fishing from a float tube.

Ummm yeah. I'm going to have to disagree there. I could buy a $25 zebco rod and reel from walmart and $2.00 in jelly jigs, and another $5.00 for a fishing license and fish for a good 6-8 months out of the year from the shore at little farm ponds. On a good day I'll walk away with 2-3 pounds of filleted meat. All I have to do is catch this amount 10 times and I've already outdone 10 boxes worth of gordons or van de camps fish sticks or whatever.

I can also buy a $120 20 guage from walmart and a box of $10 shells, and $50 in licenses in tags and walk away with hundreds of dollars of deer, pheasant, and quail meat per year...depending on how I want to process it.

Maybe I was'nt clear. If you are working instead of paying to fish/hunt you will come out ahead. Ones outlook about sports fishing should be thought of as just that a sport, not a profitable enterprise, enjoy the moment.

I spend more than 100 on gas when fishing.


 

Crappopotamus

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2002
1,920
0
0
fishing in general sucks. i prefer being more proactive rather than waiting there for the fish to come to me. namely going to the supermarket.
 

Nyical

Golden Member
Feb 7, 2003
1,157
0
0
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
How much beer did you drink? That always helps:D



You forgot about holding your lips just right, that always helps too ;)
 

Cyberian

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2000
9,999
1
0
Originally posted by: Wduaqnug
I finally decided to try it. from 12pm to 3:30pm $24 . Instead of deep sea it took us to place near shore. Out of 11 guys only 2 caught one fish. I saw guys on the shore rocks catching more than we did. First and last experience
Sheephead's Bay?
I thought I saw you and Spunky on the Tampa I/II?

 

Booster

Diamond Member
May 4, 2002
4,380
0
0
Originally posted by: Crappopotamus
fishing in general sucks. i prefer being more proactive rather than waiting there for the fish to come to me. namely going to the supermarket.

Yep, if fish doesn't come to me, I'm coming to the fish.
 

TonyG

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2000
2,021
2
81
I went deep sea fishing out in the Gulf of Mexico, but we actually went out a good ways, we were actually outside of the U.S. water border if I remember correctly. Several people caught fish, mostly sharks, and we had a great time. I got a nice shark, maybe 3ft long, and it was great eating cooked over an open fire with a little lemon juice. I would like to go again if I ever get back down to the coast, doesn't matter if I catch anything or not. Fishing just gives me a chance to get away from everyone and everything.