Slashdot Mirror
PostgreSQL 7.4 Released
Christopher Kings-Lynne writes "PostgreSQL 7.4 has just been released. The list of new features is impressive and includes greatly improved OLAP performance among many other speed improvements."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I use PostgreSQL extensively, and I have had a hard time convincing my-mySQL (I'm so clever) exclusive friends to give it a try.
One thing that should be noted is that the JDBC drivers (http://jdbc.postgresql.org) are now among the best I've used. For those developing Java apps, the choice is now even more clear.
....still no native replication. MySQL has this one single advantage over Postgres.
Oh, raw disk use would be nice too.
Martin Brooks / Slayer99 #linux / UIN 2178117
I run postgres on my own database servers (when I'm not making movies, that is). Now, there's a distributed database project associated with Postgres, trying to add replication into the databases' bag of tricks.
Lotus Notes implements e-mail and lots of other things on top of a database engine that performs replication. So, could Postgres be used to develop a Lotus Notes type application with replicated databased for e-mail, calendars, team rooms, etc?
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
I'm sure I'm gonna get modded down for this, but does anyone know when is there gonna be a version that can run in windows natively (without using Cywin)?
I ask because we are FORCED to use Windows boxes at work, and they gave all of the developers 2. We can't reformat and put linux on (or do a dual-boot) because they check to make sure everything is status-quo. And right now the atmosphere around here is not the greatest, so I'd rather not risk anything with the PHB's by trying to trick them.
I usually have my 2nd machine as a server running mySQL as a testbed for my database apps. I'd LOVE to switch to Postgresql, but I'm limited as to what I can do.
Any idea when a Windows native version will be available?
Because they care about your data, among other things! You could have the fastest database server in the world, but if you find your data is corrupt, or truncated without warning, it doesn't do you much good.
Here is huge list of MySQL Gotcha's that absolutely floored me when I first read it. In my opinion, a "gotcha" in regards to a database is a "Bad Thing(tm)"
MySQL Gotchas"
Open Source Time and Attendance, Job Costing a
Actually, Sequel was the name for the original Standard English Query language invented by IBM. SQL was the name of the second version of the language, also invented by IBM.
r y/ techarticle/0301jones/0301jones.html
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/libra
I'm using Postgres in a company that analyzes statistics, and maintain a ~250GB db. Trust me, when you're talking about doing a seq. scan on 250GB of data, the preformance differences are MUCH more than minor. The reports of speed increases don't cite minor increases either, they cite really major changes.
Taken from the presskit:
PERFORMANCE
Several major performance enhancements have been added in version 7.4, enabling PostgreSQL to match or exceed the speed of other enterprise database systems. These include:
* Hash aggregation in memory to make data warehousing and OLAP queries up to 20 times faster;
* Improvements in subquery handling by the planner resulting in up to 400% speed increases in some complex queries;
* New script to set more reasonable postgresql.conf defaults for shared buffers, yielding better "out of the box" performance;
* New wire protocol (version 3) increases the speed of data transfers;
* Enhanced implementation of functional indexes allows better indexing on custom data types and composite fields;
We have one client who uses Linux, the rest are all Windows-based... Is there an unbiased (as far as can be) comparison ?
Now, see your problem?
Neither PosgreSQL or mySQL are full, complete, and utterly perfect implemtations of a database. Neither is Oracle, BTW.
mySQL got a HUGE push some time ago. Back then, mySQL couldn't be beat for handling read-only (Actually, highly read-almost exclusively always). mySQL was a champ when you had a web site, mostly static catalog of products (for example), and had really limited demand for SQL (Like one query that read 'select * from catalog;')
That basis of comparison is no longer true.
So, at the time, hords of little corporate minions lined up and specified mySQL. Not a bad bet at the time, but open mindedness only seems to happen once in computer circles. Day 1 you have a need, day 2 you actually research available solutions, and day 3 you declare a "winner" and it is forevermore cast in stone as the "one true solution". The fact masses of people tend to go thorugh the same process at basically the same time doesn't help. Thus the broad noise that mySQL is "the Answer(tm)".
Anyway, postreSQL has always sought to compete in the full function space. Oracle was/is a much better "comparison" to postgreSQL than mySQL.
Now, both mySQL and postreSQL have improved over time - greatly. postgreSQL seems to be focused on getting things "correct", while mySQL doesn't seem so concerned. Bascially postgreSQL will not provide a feature, while mySQL will hacking it together in some bizzare way (re: early "transaction" handling). mySQL has quite a few anti-social behaviors. Over time, their refinement of those various behaviors drive certain development costs and create some degree of lock-in dependency (a continuing basis for self-justification).
Bottom line, if you invested in learning and implementing mySQL, and it is still working for you, then there is absolurely no need to be concerned with postgreSQL yet.
If you are in the database selection mode, you should surely look towards postgreSQL and try to de-hype yourself from any pro-mySQL bias. Hype has inertia and much of the pro-mySQL hype is based on old comparisons and narrow needs. Yes, evaluate both, but don't assume mySQL or postgreSQL is "better" based on what you hear.
Now, my understanding of the vacuum command was that it effectively took the DB offline (not good with the hit-rate I have), and my understanding of 'auto-vacuum' was that it would negate that effective downtime. It appears that that is not the case.
Normal VACUUM commands do not lock tables as of 7.3. Only the full vacuum command does this, which you probably only need to use when permanently retiring a client, rather than just rotating out their data, as the lock is used to actually repack the database on the filesystem to reduce the filesize.
For your needs the normal vacuum provided by auto-vacuum should be sufficient, as you're going to fill up the empty filespace with the next period's data anyway.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.