Slashdot Mirror


UML, PostgreSQL Get Corporate Support

tcopeland writes "An article on NewsForge highlights some changes in the upcoming PostgreSQL release (v7.5) that are funded by Fujitsu. PostgreSQL core team member Josh Berkus says that "Tablespaces, Nested Transactions, and Java support" are being underwritten by Fujitsu; this has also been mentioned on the postgresql-hackers list. He also says that 7.5 will be "...the most significant new release of the software since version 7.0 almost four years ago". Good times for PostgreSQL users!" And ggoebel writes "Jeff Dike posted a notice to the UML [User-mode Linux] developers mailing list: 'The first bit of news is that as of last Monday, I am working for Intel. They generously offered a full-time position, off-site, with my time mostly spent on UML. This basically means that UML is no longer a part-time, after-hours thing for me, so we should start seeing more work happening on it, especially compared to the last month or two.'"

213 comments

  1. Good by Aliencow · · Score: 1

    Good to see PostgreSQL getting some attention !

    If only our application here didn't cost millions to develop and wasn't dependant on MS SQL...

    1. Re:Good by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      If only our application here didn't cost millions to develop and wasn't dependant on MS SQL...

      Then you probably would not have a job there would you.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:Good by Aliencow · · Score: 1

      I'm not a coder :-)

    3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Same with ours.

      Although recently one of our employees demo'd a "clone" (not of all the features, but enough to show it's real) of our system ported to PostgreSQL.

      It's being considered for some new (possibly lower margin, so free is good) products in the product family.

      The old "pgadmin II" tool had a useful migration tool, so other than stored procedures, the upgrade from MSsqlserver to PostgreSQL is supposedly quite smooth. That tool is still available but is hard to find because the newer pgadmin III doesn't (yet) have the migration feature.

    4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you probably would not have a job there would you.

      It's strange you should mention that but, unlike the previous poster, my employer hasn't spent anything on MS SQL and yet miraculously I still have a job! So it can happen.

    5. Re:Good by Not+The+Real+Me · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      When I search for PostgreSQL and MySQL jobs on monster.com, hotjobs and careerbuilder, there are very few positions listed.

      However, search for MSSQL or Oracle jobs, that's a whole different story.

      I hear alot of open source advocates spouting off about PostgreSQL and MySQL but I don't see alot of movement in the job market.

    6. Re:Good by KenSeymour · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Desipite this being moderated offtopic, I found this to be true myself.

      I suspect there are more system administrators reading slashdot than programmers.

      So if you are being paid to program and you want to work with PostgreSQL, your best bet is to talk your current employer to switch.
      That is because almost no one is hiring programmers for PostgreSQL or MySQL.

      Or you can keep using Oracle or MSSQL and put marketable skills on your resume.

      --
      "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
    7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perhaps it's because:
      1. PostgreSQL and MySQL are so easy to administer that it doesn't take a full-time person, whereas oracle takes a whole team of certifiable DBAs.
      2. PostgreSQL and MySQL are so fun to administrator the CTO claims that role for his own.
      3. Oracle and MySQL implementations are so damn expensive a staff of 3 full-time DBAs vanishes in the noise of those projects making them easy to approve.
      Seriously, in most cases I think the reason is #3, but in the current company it's really reason #2. :)
    8. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't they have *more* money to spend on headcount if they didn't burn money on royalty payments?

    9. Re:Good by a_karbon_devel_005 · · Score: 1

      If you're comfortable with PostgreSQL, Oracle is a walk in the park. There's only a few crucial features that PostgreSQL doesn't have (partial rollbacks, embedded Java) that Oracle does. It's like C++ and Java and C#. If you've worked with one, the other is cake. And by the way I AM employed for a company using MySQL, but we're migrating to PostgreSQL

  2. UML is pretty awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's really the future of "shared" webhosting because it balances the power of a full server against the cost of a shared one. Some hosts like JVDS and RimuHosting are already doing this and it's great.

    1. Re:UML is pretty awesome by kanthoney · · Score: 1

      ...also Bytemark and Memset in the UK.

    2. Re:UML is pretty awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess no modelling language is complete until it can host webpages...

    3. Re:UML is pretty awesome by gtrubetskoy · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It's really the future of "shared" webhosting because it balances the power of a full server against the cost of a shared one.

      I respecfully disagree. While UML gives you excellent isolation, it is an extremely inefficient way to virtualize your server since it does not take advantage (by design) of all the optimizations that UN*X provides. UML is great for kernel developers and applications where isolation is far more important than performance.

      In Linux virtual server hosting, the future will be Linux VServer Project

      (ok, I'm somewhat biased, I admit)

    4. Re:UML is pretty awesome by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Linux VServer might be the future, but the documentation is so far in the past, we'll never know.

      Why are Wikis always touted as the solution to documentation, yet every time I try to find useful information in some project Wiki, it is always useless?

      Ahh, there's a paper on VServers. Sounds kind of like jails with more separation. However, the filesystem separation of UML is a feature. VServers are good for completely managed hosting, I'm sure, but UML is the answer to people who want to get whole machines. Instead of leasing a computer to someone, you can lease a UML instance, and no matter what they do to it, they (in theory) cannot cause problems for anyone else.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:UML is pretty awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think i like UML's way of doing it better (it allows for lots of different distributions to be installed)

    6. Re:UML is pretty awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      you can lease a UML instance, and no matter what they do to it, they (in theory) cannot cause problems for anyone else.

      That's one view of it. But consider that customers who pay for a hosting service are not out there to cause problems. They want the fastest service for the smallest price. The issue with UML hosting is that you cannot put nearly as many UML's on a single box as you would in VServer/Jail set up, and the end result is going to be that your service will be slower and more expensive.

    7. Re:UML is pretty awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are plenty of "customers" out to cause problems. There are many that will take advantage of anything they can if it'll benefit them, regardless of how it affects the rest of the people using the server. I browsed some of the VServer hosts, and they all seemed more expensive than the UML host I have.

    8. Re:UML is pretty awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      linode.com offers UML-based hosting as well. [no, i neither work there or use them]

    9. Re:UML is pretty awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      ... also Linode.com, which has the largest deployment of UML.

    10. Re:UML is pretty awesome by rfinnvik · · Score: 1

      Hopefully UML can compete with GSX/ESX server from VMware - at least for linux-only hosting.

      Would be interesting to see some comparative performance analysis.

      We had some IBM people over, showing ESX server running on an xSeries 445. Seemed pretty sweet :) Could really cut down on hardware costs.

    11. Re:UML is pretty awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to aggree the vserver hosts do seem to be more expensive to the UML hosts.

      I have also not seen a vserver control panel that can surpass the ones created by uml hosts, like the ones available at linode.com

      Adam

    12. Re:UML is pretty awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was under the impresssion that UML was not a airtight security solution. That is, if someone wants to cause a problem, they could.

    13. Re:UML is pretty awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't work on the project, so I can't really say for sure, but I was under the impression that that was the goal. It's still pretty new, so I wouldn't be shocked if there were a way to crash things or whatever, but from what I've seen, you really are pretty isolated.

    14. Re:UML is pretty awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have to aggree the vserver hosts do seem to be more expensive to the UML hosts.

      Are you sure you are not confusing VServer hosts with Virtuozzo hosts such as GlobalServer or Spry? Virtuozzo costs several thousand dollars per server (even though VServer is slowly outnumbering it in number of features), so no wonder they are more expensive, though it does come with a nice control panel.

    15. Re:UML is pretty awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I looked at a couple off the list on the vserver site, like LiquidWeb. They're starting at $80, and I'm paying half that for quite a bit more.

    16. Re:UML is pretty awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      like LiquidWeb. They're starting at $80

      well www.openhosting.com mentioned above starts at $17.95...

    17. Re:UML is pretty awesome by AikedeJongste · · Score: 1

      At www.budgetdedicated.com we have had no problems with customers abusing or hacking our servers.

    18. Re:UML is pretty awesome by cwiegand · · Score: 1

      I would have to disagree with you. We recently had an associate business want to host their site on our servers. Now, my network's secured, but the idea of people able to shell into a server on the inside of my network, a server that hosts our web site too (and the PHP on our site requires certain security checks disabled). So, I didn't want them on my web server. I've been thinking of using UML, to split out the DNS, SMTP, and web parts of the servers for quite awhile. VS doesn't do that, it just gives me apparent high availability, it doesn't segment. It does exactly the opposite of what I, and many security-minded sysadmins want - it makes several servers look like one (useful in some circumstances), I needed to make one server run multiple ones separately without needing to buy separate boxes.

      Sadly, it appears that UML still crashes when the guest OS does things like access the HW clock or just throws a bad sleep() call... So for now they get their own box.

      --
      Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep in a shared include somewhere.
    19. Re:UML is pretty awesome by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      The question of whether or not they are out to cause problems is utterly irrelevant. People cause problems accidentally all the time.

      As far as I can tell the major overhead from running UMLs is memory. While that is certainly a limit, I think many people will be willing to spend a few megabytes per customer in order to get near-complete separation.

      I'm not saying vservers have no place - again, I think they're highly useful for completely managed hosting. But, as an interim step between colocation and a vserver, UML is fantastic. It is relatively easy to set up already, will only get easier, and provides a complete virtual system, as I am sure you know.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:UML is pretty awesome by rsax · · Score: 1
      I've been thinking of using UML, to split out the DNS, SMTP, and web parts of the servers for quite awhile. VS doesn't do that, it just gives me apparent high availability, it doesn't segment. It does exactly the opposite of what I, and many security-minded sysadmins want - it makes several servers look like one

      www.linuxvirtualserver.org and www.linux-vserver.org are two totally different projects.

    21. Re:UML is pretty awesome by chthon · · Score: 1

      I have been running since two months a virtual network of 5 UML instances on my Red Hat 9 system. They all run Debian into memory spaces of 64, 128 and 256 Mb of memory.

      Their functions are separated into :

      • A mirror for Debian testing
      • A Debian 'unstable' configuration
      • A Zope application server
      • A postgreSQL database server
      • A workstation setup

      All UML instances update themselves automatically every day from the mirror server.

      The current uptime for the complete system is now almost 23 days (mostly due to maintenance and some cable problems).

      Future plans : move my mail hub from my Linux router/firewall/proxy combo to a UML instance, add NFS and NIS to share common home directories, and add filesystem images for Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSe, Slackware.

  3. That's all fine and dandy, but... by Mr.+Spontaneous · · Score: 2, Interesting
    'The first bit of news is that as of last Monday, I am working for Intel. They generously offered a full-time position, off-site, with my time mostly spent on UML. This basically means that UML is no longer a part-time, after-hours thing for me, so we should start seeing more work happening on it, especially compared to the last month or two.'

    Will this mean that Intel might have a chance to influence its development? The true benefit of projects such as this is their independence from the big brother corporations who attempt to control the industry/market.

    --
    Its all fun and games until someone loses an eye... then its just fun.
    1. Re:That's all fine and dandy, but... by jbolden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well obviously if they are funding development then they will have influence on what gets worked on. What political agenda do you see Intel as likely to have on advancing user mode? It would seem to me that this is fairly typical of Intel software devleopment for the last 15 years -- making sure that there is publically available code highlighting how to do cool things with their CPUs.

    2. Re:That's all fine and dandy, but... by SIGALRM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The true benefit of projects such as this is their independence from the big brother corporations

      You mean like Sun and HP funding the Apache group?

      Or Novell and Ximian underwriting the Mono Project?

      Or IBM contributing to F/OSS?

      Do you think these and other projects would be where they are today without the backing of serious money/resources?

      --
      Sigs cause cancer.
    3. Re:That's all fine and dandy, but... by Mr.+Spontaneous · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just think that, with the funding, the projects are encouraged in a certain direction. This isn't always bad, but seeing something with a "Optimized for the Pentium 4" logo always makes me wonder what would have happened if it didnt have this funding. (I would say the same thing if it was optimized for AMD)...

      --
      Its all fun and games until someone loses an eye... then its just fun.
    4. Re:That's all fine and dandy, but... by bfields · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I just think that, with the funding, the projects are encouraged in a certain direction. This isn't always bad, but seeing something with a "Optimized for the Pentium 4" logo always makes me wonder what would have happened if it didnt have this funding.

      You've seen free software projects with "Optimized for the Pentium 4" on them?

      I think people may not realize the extent to which free software development is already corporate-funded.

      --Bruce Fields

    5. Re:That's all fine and dandy, but... by cleverhandle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Loosen up that tinfoil hat, man. This is a pretty natural project for Intel to invest in. Improved User Mode Linux leads naturally to more shared servers, as others have detailed. And, in the interest of efficiency, those shared server operators will be interested in nice, juicy processors to allow more virtual servers on the same piece of physical hardware.

      Sounds like a simple business investment to me - no need to search for conspiracies here.

    6. Re:That's all fine and dandy, but... by Bilbo · · Score: 1
      > the projects are encouraged in a certain direction.

      True enough, but isn't the major advantage of F/OSS that, even if company Foo wants to pour money into developing feature "X", if I want feature "Y", I can still develop that on my own? Granted, it might take more time, and it might even be more difficult, but I'm still free to build any extensions I want, as long as I have the time and resources. Company Foo doesn't "own" the project. They just get to encourage people to develop features they need faster than they might have been developed otherwise...

      --
      Your Servant, B. Baggins
    7. Re:That's all fine and dandy, but... by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 1

      It would seem to me that this is fairly typical of Intel software devleopment for the last 15 years -- making sure that there is publically available code highlighting how to do cool things with their CPUs.

      True, but funding UML seems kind of curious. After all, if you can virtualize, then theoretically you're going to be buying fewer of those Intel processors. So, what are those bunny-suited Intellers up to?

      --
      Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    8. Re:That's all fine and dandy, but... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Will this mean that Intel might have a chance to influence its development? The true benefit of projects such as this is their independence from the big brother corporations who attempt to control the industry/market."

      Man the anti-corporation mind set really gets me sometimes. There are benifits to large corporatins. We would not have cheap super powerful PCs without them.
      Unix cam from the granddaddy of all mega corps AT&T.

      Let's see Intel is going to PAY this guy and he will also probably get benifits for himself and his family. This seems like a great deal to me.
      Corporations!=BAD Corporations!=GOOD
      Getting paid to develop free software == GOOD.
      It frankly boggles my mind that anyone feels they have the right to judge this guys actions. Anyone that does not like the fact he is getting paid by Intel for this you can do one of two things.
      1. Pay him what Intel will to work on free code
      or
      2. Take the current CVS snapshot and fork it and work on it in your free time while not takeing any money from Intel.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:That's all fine and dandy, but... by LetterJ · · Score: 1

      It might be that the processors that they *do* buy will be higher end ones instead of the cheap ones.

    10. Re:That's all fine and dandy, but... by Sxooter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's not the same thing. If the higher ups at Oracle tell the Oracle developers to include a dubios feature that may be bug ridden, the developers DO IT because they were told to.

      If IBM tells the apache group to put in dubious and buggy code, the apache group tells them to buzz off.

      There is a difference, even if it isn't obvious at first glance.

      --

      --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
    11. Re:That's all fine and dandy, but... by TA · · Score: 1

      >True, but funding UML seems kind of curious. After all, if you can >virtualize, then theoretically you're going to be buying fewer of >those Intel processors. So, what are those bunny-suited Intellers up to?

      Weeell.. in my group we just bought a new Intel PC.
      We were going to anyway, but when we figured out we
      could use it for running lots of UML guest hosts on
      it for letting the developers get their own specific
      test environments we decided to upgrade the order to
      a huge hunky SMP Xeon machine. So, in this case UML
      got Intel more money out of the deal.

    12. Re:That's all fine and dandy, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fujitsu has a hidden agenda? Do you realize that PostgreSQL is open source? You're a paranoid anti-corporate idiot who's living in a fantasy where everyone has a hidden agenda. I'd hazard a guess that you probably smoke pot on a regular basis as well.

      My take on the situation is that Fujitsu simply wants to eliminate some licensing costs (e.g., if they're using Oracle or some other commercial database engine then we know it's going to be very costly for them) by ensuring the features they need will be available in PostgreSQL. The trade-off? The obvious short term cost, and the benefit to everyone else who hasn't paid a dime for it, but compared to commercial database licensing costs I'd say it's worth it.

      I really doubt they have any hidden agenda. It all seems crystal clear to me.

  4. clarification please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    UML ....

    (1) Unified Modeling Language?

    or (2) User Mode Linux?

    Methinks (2), given that I work alot with (1) and have never heard of Jeff Dike

    1. Re:clarification please... by mastergoon · · Score: 0

      User Mode Linux...check the link in the article...

    2. Re:clarification please... by mrwiggly · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sheesh, click on the link! It's user mode linux.

    3. Re:clarification please... by Dr.+Descartes · · Score: 1

      You're right. It's #2.

    4. Re:clarification please... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Ye gods, that guy needs help.

      I've never been a professional software developer, but considering things "mysteriously fixed" doesn't seem like an appropriate strategy. Shouldn't someone go back to old code versions (via CVS) and try to reproduce some of these things?

      Also, from the sound of it, he's not getting much support from people who report bugs.

    5. Re:clarification please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too. I've never heard of "alot" either, at least not anywhere that respects spelling.

    6. Re:clarification please... by ndogg · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, are there any UML diagrams for UML?

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  5. Solid stuff, that PostgreSQL... by tcopeland · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...RubyForge has been running on it for almost a year now, no problems.

    Only a half million records and only about 75K queries a day, so it's not a huge DB... but it's definitely getting the job done.

    1. Re:Solid stuff, that PostgreSQL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious: What replication method is RubyForge using? Or is it single machine? I'm looking for a replication method for PostgreSQL and am leaning towards commandprompt.com's solution, unless someone says otherwise.

    2. Re:Solid stuff, that PostgreSQL... by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > Or is it single machine?

      Yup, just a single machine. We've talked about using replication for a hot backup, but for now, a simple nightly pg_dumpall is enough.

      > commandprompt.com's solution

      Yup, that looks like a good one, and the price isn't bad either - $1K.

    3. Re:Solid stuff, that PostgreSQL... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      We use postgres at my office for our phone que system. Works like a charm.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  6. UML is no longer a part-time, after-hours thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This basically means that UML is no longer a part-time, after-hours thing for me

    You have my deepest sympathy.

  7. UML by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 5, Informative
    OK, UML is User Mode Linux. Got it. No, no, I'm not confused, I get the coincidence with the other extremely widespread use of the acronym. No prob, Dude.

    1. Re:UML by timothy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lorcha --

      You're right; I'd meant to parse the name and add in a link (as I now have done) to the project's web page.

      timothy

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    2. Re:UML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nice, but perhaps you could write out the words "User-Mode Linux" in the blurb?

    3. Re:UML by Ignignot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Egad, a slashdot editor has apologized for giving an incomplete story blurb! Did I cross over into... The Twilight Zone?

      Thanks timothy

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    4. Re:UML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you!

  8. UML by lorcha · · Score: 2, Informative
    Who the hell is Jeff Dike and why is he working on the Unified Modeling Language? And why does Intel care about it?

    Oh, you meant User-mode Linux? Well, why didn't you say so? Sometimes I think these writeups are intentionally confusing.

    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  9. UML Support? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Does anyone know of a chart regarding current DB providers and their respective UML adoption level? (i.e. "db2 supports it, xyzDB doesn't)

    --
    stuff |
  10. Table spaces? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does this mean that PostGreSQL will actually be able to write *directly* to disk cluster? That would be one serious performance boost! My only request is that they do us all a favor and make sure that we can fragment the tables across spaces. It tends to suck when one table fills an entire drive, and it refuses to use all the space on the other drives.

    1. Re:Table spaces? by jadavis · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Tablespaces" allow you to put individual tables on different storage devices. Prior to tablespaces, an entire database had to be on one device*.

      You are referring to two completely different technologies:

      (1) "Writing directly to disk cluster" - By that you seem to mean direct disk access, not through the filesystem. I don't even think this is part of the PostgreSQL TODO, because there is just not a very strong need. Are you experiencing performance problems in this regard?

      (2) "fragment tables across spaces" - By that you mean "Table Partitioning". That allows you to break up a single table across multiple storage devices. That would be very valuable technology, but as far as I know, won't make 7.5.

      If all these features really work out for 7.5, they should call the release 8.0, and maybe they will.

      *: There are some tricks you can use if you need to move a single table to a different device prior to 7.5. I think symlinks work fine, but if it's important, I'd wait for 7.5 or ask on the -general list to make sure it's correct.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    2. Re:Table spaces? by rgigger · · Score: 2, Informative

      No it does not write directly to the disk cluster if you mean that it can write to a raw unformatted disk. They want to get all of the nice buffering for free from the os because they can't beat it's performance yet. Writing directly to the raw disk would slow it down right now. They are going to reconsider this if someone can write a caching system that can beat the os but so far that hasn't happened.

      They also do not have table partioning. It has been discussed and it is a high priority feature but it doesn't seem like anyone has seriously tried to tackle it yet. I'm guessing that it will be on the radar for the next release though.

      Tablespaces basically just lets you partition your db across different volumes but a single table cannot be split up.

      I am not a developer but this is what I have gleaned from the hackers list.

    3. Re:Table spaces? by jadavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are going to reconsider this if someone can write a caching system that can beat the os but so far that hasn't happened.

      It's a little more complicated I think. Using the filesystem has other advantages as well:

      (1) PostgreSQL can work well with other applications running. Let's say you invent the best caching algorithm possible, then you still have two seperate caches, one for PostgreSQL and one for everything else. That means you have to dedicate the machine to PostgreSQL and have a high PostgreSQL cache (but any other app will suffer), or give postgres a low amount of cache space and it will suffer.

      (2) The postgres developers don't want to worry about the bugs involved in making their own filesystem. Also, who's to say they can make a filesystem as fast right off the bat? It might be a huge development effort, with relatively minor benefit for most people.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    4. Re:Table spaces? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Here I was hoping that we could replace Oracle. Ah well, good news none the less. Thanks for the info. :-)

    5. Re:Table spaces? by GooberToo · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Tablespaces" allow you to put individual tables on different storage devices. Prior to tablespaces, an entire database had to be on one device*.

      Strictly speaking, that's not true. You can move things around manually, and some have done so, but it's not pretty, not easy, and not easy to maintain. Implementation of tablespaces in PostgreSQL simply allows its users to easily do what was previously an arcane-voodoo art. So clearly, it's a big step up. But, you already knew that. ;)

      "Writing directly to disk cluster" - By that you seem to mean direct disk access, not through the filesystem. I don't even think this is part of the PostgreSQL TODO, because there is just not a very strong need. Are you experiencing performance problems in this regard?

      That's correct. AFAIK, there is no desire to implement raw partition support. The speed difference is minimal and the required code is large. Basically, you wind up writing a FS and associated buffer management into the database. The return generally is not very high. It used to be, many years ago. These days, filesystem technology and implementations are plenty fast. Those that want raw partition access, IMO, are simply living in the past.

      If all these features really work out for 7.5, they should call the release 8.0, and maybe they will.

      You are correct. Accordingly to the list, the numbering constantly goes back and forth. From what i gather, they are waiting to see what features actually make it in. Depending on the scope of changes, they'll then determine the version number. As a rule of thumb, people are calling it 7.5, simply because nothing else has been blessed.

      Please don't think I'm correcting what you've said. You've said nothing that I disagree with. I'm simply adding a followup remark. ;)

      Cheers!

    6. Re:Table spaces? by brlewis · · Score: 1
      Plus using the existing file system lets PostgreSQL run under user-mode linux.

      Demo from my linode

    7. Re:Table spaces? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting
      By that you mean "Table Partitioning". That allows you to break up a single table across multiple storage devices.

      For the uninitiated and lazy, is there any compelling reason why that's better than putting the database files on a RAID and letting the OS split the table across devices?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    8. Re:Table spaces? by kpharmer · · Score: 4, Informative

      > For the uninitiated and lazy, is there any compelling reason why that's better than putting the
      > database files on a RAID and letting the OS split the table across devices?

      Sure, you might want to distribute your data across multiple arrays. For example - keep your logs and tempspace on an fast & expensive raid 0+1 array of fast (15k drives). Then put small OLTP stuff on a another raid 0+1 array. Then put your huge graphic images, documents, etc on a much more economical RAID5 array.

      I use multiple arrays all the time for performance and economics (in db2 & oracle) - this is cool to see postgres pick itup.

    9. Re:Table spaces? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      That seems reasonable. Thanks for the explanation.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    10. Re:Table spaces? by Java+Ape · · Score: 3, Informative
      The answer to this question depends on what your database looks like. For most small, general purpose databases the RAID approach is great. Fast, simple and not much planning required.

      However, for larger or more complex systems there are some advantages to splitting tables over multiple disk systems. For example, tables with lots of little niggling disk writes (access tables, change logs, temp tables) can go on a fast (possibly striped) disk system. You don't have to waste high-priced, high performance RAID on archived data (if it crashes, restore from tape), or on large media files etc stored as blobs or clobs.

      These are just examples, but on a large server with several different disk sytems available, this technology lets the database designer match storage system performance characteristics much more accurately than a simple raid.

    11. Re:Table spaces? by Sxooter · · Score: 1

      Actually, tablespaces is already in CVS tip today, the day of the feature freeze and should make it into the final release.

      Writing to a raw partition is no real winner for PostgreSQL, and not likely to be implented until someone can SHOW that they'd be faster for an actual test case and then do the work.

      --

      --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
    12. Re:Table spaces? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the party line on the postgresql devel lists is that raw filesystem support is more important for Oracle than for PostgreSQL, becaus in Oracle's case it likes being given *large* amounts of memory that it will manage. Postgresql prefers to only manage a smaller pool of buffers (your typical working set), and allow the OS to manage the caching/buffering of the other disk pages.

      Since the postgresql buffer management is designed for this more specific buffer pool, going to a filesystem-free device where the OS's buffer caches don't help postgres could do more harm than good.

      How well this works all depends on how well your OS manges it's buffering of disk pages. This was a very important optimization in the past (oracle on WinNT), but as Solaris, Linux, and XP improved their buffering, the difference is much less now than it was.

    13. Re:Table spaces? by njcoder · · Score: 1
      It's fairly trivial to put your logs on a seperate device. I do it wit a symlink. Probably not the best solution but it works. On one machine, I have my /var mounted on a seperated device and put my pgsql logs in there. I don't remember if that's the default location. Just splitting up your logs and your data on seperate devices makes a big difference in performance. I actually didn't RTFA this time so I'm not quite sure what the new feature is all about. I guess it just makes it easier to set this up?

      As for graphics, images, documents, etc, I never usually have those associated with the db in the first place. Keep em on the filesystem with the web tier stuff. Do you really put this stuff in the DB? Or were you just remarking in general about splitting up files by what they are used for?

    14. Re:Table spaces? by kpharmer · · Score: 1

      > As for graphics, images, documents, etc, I never usually have those associated with the db in the
      > first place. Keep em on the filesystem with the web tier stuff. Do you really put this stuff in the
      > DB? Or were you just remarking in general about splitting up files by what they are used for?

      Both actually. I was just generalizing for an example. However, as much as I'd prefer to avoid putting files in a database, it is sometimes necessary.

      A few examples of where it's necessary include:

      - some content managment solutions where multiple text & multi-media components are considered part of a package that goes thru various authorization/promotion stages before being presented to the customer.

      - event management solutions (security, system management, etc) in which which logs need to get saved and tied to events or trouble-tickets. These logs can often be huge - thousands of lines of text or whatever.

      - document management systems - where hapless souls are forced to build systems in support of '40s technology - storing images of documents (rather than normalized data from documents).

      So, yeah back in the day (early 80s) we used to think that a hundred megabyte database was slightly unsuual, are quite expensive to implement in a relational database. These days, ten gbyte databases are common, and I run into 300+ gbytes all the time.

      The improvements that postgresql is making will help it out in this space, whether due to better support for multiple raid arrays or as a predessor to parallel io devices.

    15. Re:Table spaces? by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      I believe grandparent post is refering to transaction logs, not diagnostic logs which is what you're thinking of I think

    16. Re:Table spaces? by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

      As for graphics, images, documents, etc, I never usually have those associated with the db in the first place. Keep em on the filesystem with the web tier stuff. Do you really put this stuff in the DB?

      Yes, almost anytime you have mug shots of people (e.g. HR, FBI terrorist suspects, etc.) they go in a db along with the rest of the individual's HR record. And it isn't that unusual to store documents in a db, either.

    17. Re:Table spaces? by platypus · · Score: 1

      Those that want raw partition access, IMO, are simply living in the past.

      Or do it because their corporate strategy is to be independent on filesystem implementations in the OSs their db runs on (maybe just in case the vendor screws up or his new filesystem performs bad with oracle etc.). Also not important for postgres.

    18. Re:Table spaces? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Interesting point. Is that insight gained from personal experience?

    19. Re:Table spaces? by platypus · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. I think also I did not express myself clearly. I think it might be the database vendor who wants to have the possibility of independence from the host OS's filesystem implementation. Think Microsoft, NTFS and MSSQL. If I were Oracle I'd want to have this possibility as a door into the windows world, in order to make it not too easy for MS to tune the filesystem against my application (the same is true for IBM etc.)
      This might be less important today (and raw partitions are losing their importance), but for a long term strategy which began 5 to 10 years ago, it's quite evident, IMO.

    20. Re:Table spaces? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      There really isn't much stopping you from using multiple RAID arrays when you have a "large server with several different disk systems available". With the upcoming tablespace support you can more easily put different tables on different RAID arrays.

      Why should code be added to DB software to split a table over multiple disks?

      The Oracle bunch have their reasons for reimplementing in their database what the various O/S and hardware people do. But it is counterproductive for the Postgresql team to do the same. They are better off putting effort in what really makes a technical difference (rather than what makes a nice bullet point in a brochure).

      Given the changes in hardware and operating systems, trying to duplicate the efforts of the O/S or hardware vendors is like premature optimization. If stuff improves or changes you get left behind - or you end up kludging stuff to keep up.

      For example - if you were using raw partitions striped over multiple disks, then one day you find a need to migrate stuff over to something else it's a pain. Whereas if it's just files, almost everything supports files, and will continue to support files.

      Naturally people like Oracle will be happy to provide you with expensive services and tools to help you.

      I daresay you'd only get 5-10% improvement (if at all) in speed if the DB does things directly. In contrast you can more easily and cheaply upgrade to something more than 5-10% faster in 1 years time if you maintain the layers of abstraction between the DB and everything else.

      --
    21. Re:Table spaces? by linuxhansl · · Score: 1
      That's correct. AFAIK, there is no desire to implement raw partition support. The speed difference is minimal and the required code is large. Basically, you wind up writing a FS and associated buffer management into the database. The return generally is not very high. It used to be, many years ago. These days, filesystem technology and implementations are plenty fast. Those that want raw partition access, IMO, are simply living in the past.

      The point of writing directly to the disk has to do with cache management. As it turns out the LRU eviction strategy which makes sense for typical filesystem access to the disk is not at all optimal for database access. If databases access their data through the filesystem at least there should be a way to disable the filesystems caching. The performance gain can be significant.

      Compare "Operating System Support for Database Management" Michael Stonebraker, et al.

    22. Re:Table spaces? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Turning off the cache would destroy PostgreSQL's performance. It's actually designed to take advantage of FS cache, as any proper DB sitting on top of a FS should. Turning off the cache would mean every virtual I/O is suddenly physical I/O, which would completely destroy performance of any DB which is too small to fit into memory. What really needs to happen is, alternate cache strategies need to be made available. And guess what, the Linux kernel guys have been talking about this for some time. One way or another, something will probably be offered under Linux. In the mean time, since it's not a significant problem for the vast, vast, vast majority of users, it will probably remain a fairly low priority item. While it does mean that some workloads will not be complimentary to the existing cache strategy, worst case will still result in performance equal to or better than having cache disabled.

      It really sounds like you're trying to make the case that every DB should have their own FS and cache management subsystem. Which pretty much brings us back full circle. The answer is, it's a waste. It adds complexity, bugs, and bloat while attempting to re-engineer and reimplement what the OS is specifically designed to do. Worse, in order to take advantage of it, now we're back on top of raw partitions. Is a couple % in performance (best case) worth all the code, the bloat, the wasted man-hours, and increased bug count? Everyone that understands the issue agrees the answer is no. People would rather work on the real problem, which is a better cache strategy for database workloads.

  11. I'm a programmer by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I suspect a lot of people here are. To me, and probably to most of them, UML is Unified Modelling Language. Hell, do a google search for UML and the top hit is to the UML website.

    I know it's too much to ask OSS projects not to pick confusing acronyms and names, but I'd like to think that story submitters or at least editors could a little clearer.

    1. Re:I'm a programmer by platos_beard · · Score: 1

      Normally, I think its reasonable to expect readers to figure out which UML or which ASP (to name two overloaded acronyms) from the context, but putting UML in a headline with a database strongly suggested to me that the UML is not the one that it turned out to be. Spelling out "user mode linux" would have been nice, but hey, the most anybody was hurt is that they wasted some time.

      Wasted time. Slashdot. Hmmm....

      --
      What's a sig?
    2. Re:I'm a programmer by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Slashdot also has lots of systems-level types, for whom user mode linux is a damn powerful tool but who often don't hold with that whole modeling-language idea.

      No real reason to cater to one audiance over the other -- I think it's perfectly reasonable for folks to actually (say) check what the UML link points at and run from context.

    3. Re:I'm a programmer by greenrd · · Score: 1
      Yeah, god forbid folks should actually have to RTFA! No, it's the Slashdot editors moral responsibility to spoon-feed us information so we can spout off without having RTFA!

  12. Excellent with large record sets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In our experience, pgSql proved to be excelent when used with large record sets (100M+). Indeed, 7.5 should be a very exciting release.

  13. Re:Good to Hear... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Informative

    the primary DB System for so long has been MySQL. PHP coders don't have too much for an alternative

    Au contraire, there are PHP interfaces for PostgreSQL, Oracle, Sybase, and MSSQL built right in to the source distribution. I seem to recall that back in the Bad Old Days before Mac OS X, when you had to compile things yourself, building PHP with all the necessary libraries was a huge pain, but now it's a trivial thing. Marc Liyanage maintains a PHP module package that snaps right into the built-in Apache web server on your Mac, and it already has most of the necessary bells and whistles built in.

    --

    I write in my journal
  14. Re:Good to Hear... by nojomofo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the primary DB System for so long has been MySQL.

    Care to qualify that statement? Ever hear of Oracle? Or DB2 or SQL Server or Sybase or...?

  15. Good tools out there for PostgreSQL.... by tcopeland · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...some on PGFoundry, some still on GBorg.

    PLUG: For example, there's this little SQL query analysis utility!

    1. Re:Good tools out there for PostgreSQL.... by GooberToo · · Score: 0

      Great link to the SQL query analysis tool!

      Thanks!

    2. Re:Good tools out there for PostgreSQL.... by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > Great link to the SQL query analysis tool!

      Thanks, I'm always happy to drop a shameless plug here on Slashdot :-)

    3. Re:Good tools out there for PostgreSQL.... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I see there is some troll loser that has targetted me. I'd hazzard a guess that it's one of my foes that brainlessly insists on modding my stuff down. What a coward. Over rated? It wasn't rated, so how can it be overrated. I would never of expected the comment to be rated at all, let alone rated as "over rated". I guess expecting mods to not be stupid is asking too much.

      I see this time and time again. I suspect it's the same loser targeting me time and time again. If you read this, grow up you pethetic loser. And for the record, you're wrong on both accounts. You must know this already or you wouldn't be acting like such a little child and constantly modding me down every chance you get. You're pethetic.

      Here's a hint! Good mods, moderate UP good comments and moderate down bad comments. Comments which were neither good nor bad, should be left alone unless your obective is to prove that you're an idiot...and we both know who you are. You are a pethetic loser. And we both know that too.

  16. All Welcome and expected - expect more.. by eamacnaghten · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is great news, not only for the projects involved, but for FOSS in general.

    Also this is consistent with the Open Source Paradigm. Where it is in the interests of companies to improve the software, and the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages of them not being exclusive. It is this philosophy, in my opinion, that will beat proprietary software models such as Microsoft, and it is these companies that are key in stopping those who want to halt the advancments of FOSS using idiotic patents and other invalid IP arguments.

    --

    Web Sig: Eddy Currents

    1. Re:All Welcome and expected - expect more.. by sumbry · · Score: 1

      This is also great news for the BSD license in general. Many people believe that the only true OS License is the GPL, because of it's requirement that all improvements are always kept open; That with the BSD license, companies will just take the source, brand it, and never give anything back to the community.

      This is just another example of a company not having to be forced to do the right thing, but rather just doing the right thing because they recognize the advantages. Kudos.

  17. OLAP still missing... by zeux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm really looking for an OLAP implementation on PostgreSQL... It's getting more an more important but it's still not there!

    I made my company switch from SQL Server to PostgreSQL but now I have to export data every day from PostgreSQL to SQL Server just to get my OLAP reports!

    As soon as OLAP is there I'll definitely get rid of SQL Server.

    1. Re:OLAP still missing... by GileadGreene · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I love PostgreSQL. I support Open Source. But I have to say: perhaps you shouldn't have forced a switch to PostgreSQL if it didn't actually meet all of your (and more importantly your company's) needs. Sounds like SQL Server was the better solution in this case.

    2. Re:OLAP still missing... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I would love to hear move comments about what OLAP features are missing, as it relates to your requirements. OLAP is a topic which comes up from time to time but real world use is often not offered.

      Keep in mind that I am not an OLAP guy, so you may need to talk down to me. ;)

      Cheers!

    3. Re:OLAP still missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In order to make it in the OLAP or DSS world in a big way Postgres needs to get a parallel query engine. Tablespaces is a step in the right direction b/c it will allow increased I/O by making it easier to bring more physical devices into play. When you start doing this though you are gonna need to be able to throw more than one thread at each query which Postgres currently can't do to my understanding.

      FYI I really love Postgres.

    4. Re:OLAP still missing... by kpharmer · · Score: 1

      > I would love to hear move comments about what OLAP features are missing, as it relates to your
      > requirements. OLAP is a topic which comes up from time to time but real world use is often not
      > offered.

      Sure - grouping sets, rollup, and cube commands. These allow you to create a cube with subtotals of various dimensions in a single pass of the data. Hugely useful for cross-tab reports, olap/reporting tools, etc.

      But, as someone else pointed out, data partitioning & parallelism are the key performance features essential to powerful reporting. That is, indexes just don't cut it when you need to crunch a million rows spread throughout another twenty million.

      So, grouping sets are handy - but what's *really* needed is partitioning & paralellism.

    5. Re:OLAP still missing... by stuktongue · · Score: 2, Informative

      Okay, I'll bite. While I am certainly not an OLAP expert, I have found a need to learn a little about it and I plan to use it as part of an application I am developing for personal use.

      For the uninitiated, OLAP stands for online analytical processing. In layman's terms, this refers to the process of interactive analysis of data, typically via incremental queries that progressively slice, dice, and refine the data set in order to reveal non-obvious relationships between various parameters.

      OLAP is typically performed on data that is of medium-age; i.e., not just current data, as would be found in a typical operational database, but maybe not the full long-term historical data, as would be found, say, in a data mining environment. Of course, different types of data and different application scenarious make such generalizations somewhat problematic, but, generally, OLAP is focused on analysis of, say, the last year or two of data. Regardless, the data sets returned by OLAP queries are typically quite large. As a result, special techniques, distinct from those used for traditional transaction processing, are usually employed in order to meet query response time requirements, which are often key requirements for OLAP systems.

      One technique often employed is the use of so-called "star" or "snowflake" schema. This form of schema is quite different from the very normalized schema of transaction processing systems in that the data are organized into central "fact tables" with related dimension tables. Dimensions are things like date, location, product, etc., and have attributes that allow fine-grained querying of the facts in the fact tables. These dimension tables are also constructed in a way that reflects natural hierarchies; e.g., a date dimension would allow queries by year, month, week, day, etc.

      While such schema can be defined in traditional transaction processing systems, OLAP-aware database systems typically incorporate design elements that optimize processing of queries on such schemas. OLAP queries are focused on examining aggregates of data across the various dimensions, such as sums, averages, etc. These aggregates may be precomputed on selected chunks of the overall data set to speed up online queries, but the query processor needs to be able to identify opportunities to take advantage of such things. So, optimizing queries for OLAP is a key feature of an OLAP-aware system.

      Another feature of an OLAP-capable system is some sort of API for creating the various components needed, e.g., the schema, definitions for any pre-computed aggregates, defining rules for "rolling up" from lower levels of a dimension's hierarchy to higher levels, etc. Oracle's OLAP, for instance, provides several techniques for accessing OLAP data and metadata, but they mostly boil down to either a Java API (high-level) or a more arcane, lower-level API for more direct access. The API(s) available to program an OLAP application can be critical in determining the ease with which applications can be created, and the types of applications that can be created.

      Does this help a little?

    6. Re:OLAP still missing... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I can see why bitmap indexes are often toughted as being required for leaping off into OLAP country.

    7. Re:OLAP still missing... by Sxooter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Take a look here:

      efeu

      --

      --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
    8. Re:OLAP still missing... by Sxooter · · Score: 1

      Multi threading isn't likely to show up any time soon. PostgreSQL's primary focus is on correct and reliable behaviour and it isn't going to change, and the currecnt view is that threads are not quite there yet in all the OSes they need to be there in, and that they aren't the cureall many folks believe them to be.

      --

      --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
    9. Re:OLAP still missing... by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      OLAP is simply analytical functionality. Yes, I do some OLAP stuff in PostgreSQL, and it already has a lot of functionality in that regard. For example, you can do a huge amount with views.

      What the poster is probably referring to are the ANSI 99 standards for CUBE and ROLLUP features which are not likely to make the next release at least.

      However, PostgreSQL is moving at an incredible rate. When someone decided that these features are worth adding, I am sure that they will be added.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    10. Re:OLAP still missing... by Cajal · · Score: 1

      "That is, indexes just don't cut it when you need to crunch a million rows spread throughout another twenty million."

      What about partial indexes? PostgreSQL has support for them.

    11. Re:OLAP still missing... by Cajal · · Score: 1

      It's a shame that the core team still feels this way. In all likelihood, PostgreSQL is mostly used on Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris and AIX. All of those have good threading support.

      It would be nice if PostgreSQL could adopt a model where each query still gets its own process, but that process can spawn threads to handle parallelizable operations. Many aggregate functions are easy to parallelize, and there have been documented parallel hash-join algorithms since the early '80s. Assuming you have enough I/O capacity, such a setup would be a lot faster than today's PostgreSQL.

    12. Re:OLAP still missing... by kpharmer · · Score: 1

      > What about partial indexes? PostgreSQL has support for them.

      Don't think so. ROLAP (a relational implementation of OLAP) is generally used to support adhoc analysis - in which almost any column can be used to restrict rows. You don't want to rely on indexes here - you'll need too many of them, it'll slow down loads too much, and it'll double the size of the data.

      The only case in which indexes typically have much value here are bitmap indexes for very low cardinality columns.

    13. Re:OLAP still missing... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Yes. Thanks.

      I've been waiting to read in more detail, when I had more time.

      Thanks again.

    14. Re:OLAP still missing... by Sxooter · · Score: 1

      Well, if you or anyone you know has a patch to do it, I'm sure it would be accepted as long as it worked well on all the major OSes that pgsql supports. But it just isn't a big enough fish to fry what with PITR, nested transactions, tablespaces and all the other improvements being made. But making a threaded process model work right now would be a LOT of work for a fairly small gain, given PostgreSQL's focus on primarily supporting large numbers of simultaneous users.

      But once all the major parts of the SQL92 and SQL99 specs are implemented, I'm sure someone will start working on the more esoteric performance issues like this.

      --

      --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
  18. PostgreSQL is much better than mySQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PostgreSQL needs more advertising. Most people don't even know that mySQL doesn't even have decent data integrity support, see http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html

    1. Re:PostgreSQL is much better than mySQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never mind the fact that for most web applications (which is the majority of MySQL installations) most people don't need true data integrity support.

  19. Re:Good to Hear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PostgreSQL is years ahead of mySQL. And on that note, I've been using PHP with PostgreSQL since 1999. Works much better than mySQL.

  20. Postgres is kicking butt by johnnyb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    and taking names. In addition to Fujitsu's additions, they are also doing point-in-time recovery. They have multiple replication solutions. It's an absolutely wonderful database to develop for.

    It's got several really cool features, such as the ability to create your own index types, the ability to create your own column types, the ability to create rules for updating views, and a lot of other things that make it an absolute joy to work with.

    The only thing I don't like about it is that it needs the ability to read bytea's as if they were BLOBs. Then life would be perfect!

    From Fujitsu's pile, tablespaces is the most interesting feature I see - and that's actually pretty cool. That's one of the things that really allows you to realize the logical/physical separation that relational databases promise.

    1. Re:Postgres is kicking butt by StandardDeviant · · Score: 1

      Which replication mechanism would you (or anyone reading, for that matter) recommend? I'd like to bring up Pg as an alternative in a proposed application with a fairly high transactional load, which probably means that whatever DB we go with will need to support some sort of load-balancing/clustering/replication.

    2. Re:Postgres is kicking butt by Sxooter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do a google search for slony. It's in early beta right now, but looks very promising.

      --

      --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
  21. This rules! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm loading more than half a million records into a Postgres db on my iBook as I write this, and I gotta say that pgsql is cool as hell. The data type support alone (polygons?!?!) makes it worth the small amount of extra effort it takes to get it up and running.

    Postgres flat blows away MySQL in every way I can thnk of except for the fact that one has to "manually" vacuum (cleanup + reindex) the db ... but that's what cron is for. The only things I miss from my MSSQL days is the ability to do on-the-fly data type changes on columns; this is actually a good thing because now I'm not so lazy about designing the db right in the first place. ;-)

    If you're out there playing with MySQL or MSSQL, you owe it to yourself to give Postgres a shot.

    1. Re:This rules! by tesmako · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Just having a polygon datatype is kinda cool in itself, but the fact that PostgreSQL really supports using R-tree indexes and thus make efficient geometric queries quickly and easily is really great.

      PostgreSQL is probably the most well-polished and useful open source project there is (gcc being the runner up, I skip linux since there really are plenty of decent OSS alternatives to it). Good going PostgreSQL team!

    2. Re:This rules! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one of the new features will be auto_vacuum, which should relieve your woes.

      Also, a significantly enhanced pl/perl - being able to write server side functions in perl, tcl, and various other languages is *really* nice.

    3. Re:This rules! by WordUpCousin · · Score: 1

      except for the fact that one has to "manually" vacuum (cleanup + reindex) the db

      Postgres 7.4 has introduced an auto-vacuuming feature.

    4. Re:This rules! by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      Auto-vacuum? So it sucks even without user intervention? Sounds like Microsoft might've sponsored that little "innovation".

      "Ha! I kill me!" - ALF

    5. Re:This rules! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The only things I miss from my MSSQL days is the ability to do on-the-fly data type changes on columns

      This you can do in the upcoming 7.5. Here is the syntax:

      ALTER [ COLUMN ] column TYPE type [ USING expression ]

      The optional USING expression is used if you need to convert the current data in some way.

    6. Re:This rules! by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Use the auto-vacuume daemon. You'll need to turn on some statistics gathering too. Once the daemon is running, it periodically checks the db statistics to determine what needs to be done when. It takes care of it for you. Check the docs, it's fully explained.

      Make sure you're using the current release and use the daemon. I think you'll be thrilled. :)

      Cheers!

    7. Re:This rules! by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      With PostgreSQL 7.5 (currently in feature freeze) contains the ability to alter a column type.

      Sit tight through the beta period and you'll have your wish.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    8. Re:This rules! by Sxooter · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. There's a new buffer manager that runs the vacuums at a much lower I/O priority than before, meaning it takes three or five times longer, BUT it doesn't slow the machine down.

      Of course, you'd have to have known what you were talking about to have known that before you posted your idiotic reply, but I'm sure thinking isn't your strong suit.

      --

      --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
    9. Re:This rules! by Zeut · · Score: 1

      A contrib module was added to 7.4 that figures out when you need to vacuum and does it automatically. In 7.5 this will upgraded from a contrib module and become integrated into the server. So hopefully all the FUD about vacuum will cease.

    10. Re:This rules! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, its really not FUD to say "postgresql requires you to vacuum the db". Its true, and its not like the original poster made it out to be the end of the world or anything. Dismissing valid issues as FUD just makes you look stupid, luckily the pgsql developers are smart enough to fix stuff instead of pretend its not a problem.

    11. Re:This rules! by glwtta · · Score: 1
      makes it worth the small amount of extra effort it takes to get it up and running.

      I'm curious about what that extra effort is. I develop on postgres and manage about 6 instances with a few dozen databases, and I've never had to do more than "./configure && make install" and maybe cp the "large database" config example. Can't really see how it could get simpler.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    12. Re:This rules! by kwoff · · Score: 1
      Postgres flat blows away MySQL in every way I can thnk of except for
      select count(*) from table;
    13. Re:This rules! by jpmorgan · · Score: 1
      If you're using PostgreSQL and you want 2D geometry, you should try the PostGIS extension.

      It supports much larger polygons than PostgreSQL's native geometry types, and far more operations on those types.

    14. Re:This rules! by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      That's, in part, the cost of MVCC. The other part is because of the power that PostgreSQL provides. Here's more detail: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/interactive/fun ctions-aggregate.html

    15. Re:This rules! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most MySQL deployments will run that without enforcing a transaction, which is very fast but gives you an answer that's out of date the moment you receive it.

    16. Re:This rules! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > except for the fact that one has to "manually" vacuum (cleanup + reindex) the db

      It's not committed yet, but there is a patch in the queue that implements auto vacumming in the backend. Hopefully it will make it for 7.5 (it was submitted before freeze).

    17. Re:This rules! by spatialguru · · Score: 1

      If you really like geometric data types checkout PostGIS - a full, power implementation of spatial data types. Load some points, buffer them, intersect them with lines. Then serve up a web map with MapServer. The power is yours!

    18. Re:This rules! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Postgresql, as of version 7.4, already implements auto vacuum. You no longer have to vacuum it yourself.

  22. Nested Transactions by dustym · · Score: 1

    Thank god.

  23. Good news! by rfernand79 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Certainly good news! :) PostgreSQL is a very robust and complete database, enjoyed by many academic users (mostly because of its excellent implementation of different SQL standards...) It's nice to hear that a company is backing them up now. UML and Intel, really cool, too. It's not as good as Linus/OSDL, but definitelly equivalent to the Linus/Transmeta years. So, in general, is this the road for the free world now? Backed up by powerful companies who also benefit? I certainly hope so.

  24. More servers running PostgreSQL... by tcopeland · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...can be found on the Big List Of GForge Sites.

    Props to Tim Perdue for picking a solid database on which to build GForge!

  25. User-Mode Linux Management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...If you want to manage a lot of UML virtual machines, I _highly_ recommend UMLazi. It has a very slick configuration file format-- configuration directories instead of a single file, which makes it really easy to manipulate with scripts--, and they've obviously put a lot of thought into security.

    I had a few problems getting it started, but the developers were very helpful.

  26. Re:Good to Hear... by ajs · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this is definitely a win. However, you're going to find that most small Web applications are going to run in a hosted environment which will probably provide MySQL as a default database.

    Still, the interface should be the same in your PHP code, so you don't really care what the back-end is unless you're doing something funky. I'm just glad to see more and more open source databases getting play.

  27. Why corporate self-interest can be good for OSS by j.+andrew+rogers · · Score: 5, Interesting
    There is more than just Fujitsu supporting PostgreSQL and the reasons there is corporate interest is pure unadulterated self-interest of the best kind.

    Postgres is getting really close to the functionality and capabilities of the Big Commercial Enterprise DBMS, close enough that anyone can see that bridging that gap is quite doable. Most of the arguable weaknesses in Postgres are in the more esoteric high-end feature space, as it is already strong and quite feature complete for most routine RDBMS work. And the upcoming new version addresses a great many of those weaknesses. As the article said, this is going to be a major release.

    The self-interest part is that it is a HELL OF A LOT CHEAPER for a corporation to pay people to add those last few features and bits that they want to Postgres than to pay an unholy amount of money to buy the required Oracle licenses. The Postgres engine is clean and fundamentally pretty good in an engineering sense, and so enterprise feature tweaks are relatively cheap. It is all about dollars and sense at the end of the day. Purchasing Postgres plus feature development is almost always going to be vastly cheaper than buying Oracle. And unlike Oracle, it is pretty much a one-time fixed cost. It is worth repeating that the engineering strength and scalability of the underlying Postgres platform is the primary reason the market is evolving this way. The gap between MySQL and high-end RDBMS is comparatively much too great for a company to fund closing that gap because a lot of additional arguably unrelated work may be required because of the internals. This increases time to delivery of features, increases the cost of adding high-end features, and increases the risk of problems.

    If Oracle suddenly dropped its enterprise licensing costs by a couple of order of magnitude, then it would seriously threaten Postgres development. But since that is unlikely to happen, corporate money will continue to flow into making Postgres a formidable Oracle replacement, which it is already well on its way to being.

    1. Re:Why corporate self-interest can be good for OSS by nsayer · · Score: 1
      Make no mistake: I am both a PostgreSQL user and a major advocate for it where I work. At the same time, I would make one little comment on this:

      Most of the arguable weaknesses in Postgres are in the more esoteric high-end feature space

      Some of those esoteric features are things like clustering/failover, which in my view aren't really so esoteric. Yes, I do know that there is third party support for it, but it isn't free.

      Raw partition support would also be a good checkbox in the 'enterprise ready' table.

    2. Re:Why corporate self-interest can be good for OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      check out pgpool, a free failover solution for postgresql

    3. Re:Why corporate self-interest can be good for OSS by jadavis · · Score: 1

      Raw partition support would also be a good checkbox in the 'enterprise ready' table.

      What does raw partition support have to do with enterprise applications?

      When I think about raw partition access, I think about a huge amount of code that allows some minor optimizations that help only on dedicated postgres boxes.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    4. Re:Why corporate self-interest can be good for OSS by nsayer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Using a raw partition typically means bypassing the filesystem code in the OS. Since most databases simply consist of a small number of large files that are randomly accessed by the database system, the overhead of the filesystem is unnecessary. Not having a filesystem between your database and the disk also means faster crash recovery - there's no need to run FSCK on the (largely irrelevant) filesystem AND run a database consistency check - you can jump right to the latter.

      You're right about this being for dedicated postgres boxes, but then dedicated database machines are exactly what you find in large enterprises. The "dot com" I work for has a big iron Sun running Oracle and nothing else, and a large number of smaller machines that do the "everything else". I think you'll find that fairly typical.

    5. Re:Why corporate self-interest can be good for OSS by stuktongue · · Score: 2, Informative

      My experience is with Oracle, so my comments here will be mostly restricted to that context. You are correct in saying that database servers are best dedicated to that function alone; the resources involved (memory, network, etc.) in running a non-trivial database server usually demand their own machine.

      I take some exception, however, to your view on raw partitions vs. filesystem-based storage. At least in the Oracle world, most studies and expert opinion I have viewed generally recommend against use of raw partitions. With appropriate use of RAID and suitable filesystem selection, the overhead associated with filesystem storage is usually not considered significant, despite many folks's assumptions otherwise. When you consider the difficulties in managing storage over time--e.g., altering tablespace mappings to files, expansion of tablespaces, equalization of I/O--use of filesystems makes such administration much more straighforward. Tom Kyte, a highly-respected technical expert at Oracle, highly recommends against the use of raw partitions unless you just can't stand the 2-3% performance hit.

      That said, raw partitions have been required in "Real Application Clusters" (RAC) environments (previously known as Oracle Parallel Server (OPS)), at least until the mainstream acceptance of so-called cluster filesystems. It is my understanding that Oracle's work on clustered filesystems is aimed at allowing RAC systems to enjoy the substantial benefits of filesystem storage.

    6. Re:Why corporate self-interest can be good for OSS by raxx7 · · Score: 1

      I think more than the filesystem overhead, it's the support for real AIO. AIO on files came later and I 'm pretty sure there are some Unixes that still only support it on raw devices (not counting those who don't really support AIO).

    7. Re:Why corporate self-interest can be good for OSS by TheLink · · Score: 1

      " highly recommends against the use of raw partitions unless you just can't stand the 2-3% performance hit."

      3%? Wow that's real low. With filesystem based storage you can more easily and cheaply upgrade/migrate the DB to something 20-50% faster in a year or two. How'd you do that if you use raw partitions? You'd be very expensively locked in.

      There are time proven good reasons for all those layers of abstraction. Rewriting half or more of those layers of abstraction (which you'd probably need to in the end) not forgetting the bugs, sounds like a crappy idea technically.

      Now I really really wonder why _anybody_ _nowadays_ would actually use raw partitions at all. Maybe in the distant past where the O/S and hardware sucked, but now?

      Why does the RAC thingy require raw partitions? Anything special other than Oracle making it so?

      --
  28. GUI Tools by Bilbo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I just started using pgadmin3, and I have a feeling I have a way to go before I get really good at it. I could really use a migration tool since, as with the previous poster, we have a lot of SQL Server based applications I'd like to see moved to something like PostgreSQL.

    Frankly, I still like the old TCL based "pgaccess". It was buggy as all get out, and really bogged down on larger databases, but it had some really nice tools such as the visual query designer.

    The article mentions a couple of other GUI tools for accessing and maintaining PostgreSQL databases. Has anyone else used these, or are there other tools that people like?

    --
    Your Servant, B. Baggins
    1. Re:GUI Tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I use this one:
      http://ems-hitech.com/pgmanager/index.phtml

    2. Re:GUI Tools by gunga · · Score: 1

      The best PostgreSQL frontend I've ever used is... Ms Access.

      I'm not joking PostgreSQL + Access makes a perfect combination.

    3. Re:GUI Tools by chriskl · · Score: 1

      Try phpPgAdmin:

      http://phppgadmin.sourceforge.net/

    4. Re:GUI Tools by lexus99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, you may find pgadmin2 a better choice for now. It has a migration plugin that works wonderfully. ASAIK, this plugin is not yet available for pgadmin3, and doesn't appear to yet be a priority, as it should IMO.

      PGAdmin2 is not available for Linux. I can only assume you use Linux since you mentioned pgaccess. I've not heard of a Win port of it, but since it is written in TCL/TK, it would probably be fairly easy to port. PGAdmin2 may even run fine under WINE (not tested)

      However, with that said, the former poster was correct, MS Access DOES work very well with postgresql. There are a few problems, but I've always managed to work past them.

      LeX
  29. PostgreSQL Rocks by drfrog · · Score: 1

    yes!

    i've been a die hard fan of PG since 6.5-ish

    --
    back in the day we didnt have no old school
  30. Re:Good to Hear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    test

  31. windows port by MagicMerlin · · Score: 3, Informative

    7.5 will contain a native windows port with no external dependencies. You can find the current binary version here.

    Even though it is currently in beta it works very well. The port is now being downloaded over 2000 times a week and increasing all the time.

  32. Also in PostgreSQL 7.5 - Native Windows Port by john_smith_45678 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Looks like version 7.5 will also include a native Windows port. Prior to this, PostgreSQL on Windows has always required Cygwin (which offers a lot of great stuff in and of itself) to run.

    1. Re:Also in PostgreSQL 7.5 - Native Windows Port by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Looks like version 7.5 will also include a native Windows port.


      Do you have an URL for this?
  33. Firebird for teh win! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to be a huge pgsql person, but then I got Firebird. I'm probably never going back!

  34. postgre who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Trying to make postgre's database like oracle's is definetly not the road to follow, more complexity and features (even tablespaces) don't make a better database, try to follow the simple and modular apporach of mysql and stop stuffing postgre unless you want to make it unbearable as Oracle, that on most common installations need a battalion of people to make it work descently.

    1. Re:postgre who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you _want_ mysql, then please USE mysql.

      Many people who use Postgresql want it to continue to advance, and do NOT want it to become like mysql.

      None of these features will make it harder to install or use a basic installation, they are advanced features to allow particular economic requirements, or performance requirements to be met.

  35. Re:Good-Postgres and SQL Server by randall_burns · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm a SQL Server DBA and Python/Perl/Postgresql developer.

    My sense is that it would be possible to extend Postgres to have a mode fully compatible with Oracle and/or Microsoft SQL Server. What this might mean is having SQL interpreters fully compatible with the quirks of Oracle and SQL Server-identical system tables available and identical libraries. I think Oracle will be the first target here because Oracle licensing fees are much higher than SQL Server--and parts of SQL Server are harder to re-engineer(i.e. DTS and some of the scheduling stuff).

    Databases are a great Open Source target because scripts are open _and_ customers frequently control their data file format.

  36. -read the article summary- please by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    Jeff Dike posted a notice to the UML [User-mode Linux]

    That's straight from the slashdot blurb. Talk about lazy, JHC...

  37. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    User-Mode Linux main site is http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net.

  38. Better acronym by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 1

    If they had given it a name such as "Linux On Linux" then it would have a better acronym.

    Then CoLinux could have become "Linux On Windows", which also has a good acronym.

    --

    Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    1. Re:Better acronym by xiphy · · Score: 1

      Linux On Linux - lol :)

  39. Google didn't exist when user-mode linux started by mec · · Score: 2, Informative

    Jeff Dike started user-mode linux in February 1998

    message from jeff

    Unified Modelling Language may have existed in early 1998; I first saw it in April 1999. But Unified Modelling Language was a lot smaller back then.

    And Google did not exist in February 1998!

    These days, when I need to name something, I stick the name in google and check for conflicts.

  40. that's nice, but by RelliK · · Score: 1

    ... where are distributed transactions? Is that even planned? That's the one feature I would love to see.

    --
    ___
    If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    1. Re:that's nice, but by Sxooter · · Score: 1

      That requires two or three phase commit, which I don't know if it's going to make it into 7.5 or not.

      --

      --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
  41. advanced features can be ignored by brlewis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    apt-get install postgresql will work fine for most common installations. Once you've created your database there's really nothing simpler about mysql; PostgreSQL is simply more adhering to SQL92. There's very little reason to ever choose MySQL anymore.

  42. what's the point? by RelliK · · Score: 1

    From this description, table spaces seem pretty pointless to me (i.e. writing tables to different disks). RAID already does this for you. So, anyone? What's the point?

    --
    ___
    If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    1. Re:what's the point? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      It's more of a space issue type of thing. If I have X amount of space on these disks, and I realize that the new tables I want to create will be too large to fit in that X space, I can add Y disks and create my tables there.

    2. Re:what's the point? by sumbry · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You've obviously never run a large database before. While a single RAID partition is fine for most uses, when you get into situations where you measure queries by how many are run per second then things really start to hit the fan.

      Tablespaces allow you to do things like place a table that is 90 percent read and 10 percent write on one RAID array while taking another table that is maybe 50 percent write and 50 percent read on another table and then taking the Postgres WAL and placing that on a completely different array.

      Table usage varies greatly across large databases. Some tables barely get touched, others get written to alot, others get read from alot.

      I'm currently running a database where our peak loads are around 35 queries, per second. I've actually symlinked table locations to put my most heavily accessed tables on a seperate RAID array from the rest of my database. This gave me a 3 fold increase in speed. This is really noticed when we do things like VACUUM the db.

    3. Re:what's the point? by bodgit · · Score: 1

      Tablespaces allow you to do things like place a table that is 90 percent read and 10 percent write on one RAID array while taking another table that is maybe 50 percent write and 50 percent read on another table and then taking the Postgres WAL and placing that on a completely different array.

      It's fairly straightforward to put the WAL on a separate disk/array already, just symlink the data/pg_xlog directory elsewhere, or mount your separate disk/array at that point.

      Popping tables on separate disks is a PITA currently, especially if they tend to grow and shrink with frequent use, so this tablespace stuff is very much welcomed.

  43. Re:Google didn't exist when user-mode linux starte by red+floyd · · Score: 2, Informative

    Rumbaugh, Booch, and Jacobsen started on UML in the mid 90s.

    According to this, UML 0.9 was from 1996, UML 1.0 was 1997.

    --
    The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  44. Flamewar by Marcus+Green · · Score: 1

    Will someone please start a pointless PostgreSQL vs MySQL flame war. Surely a mention of a FOSS database cannot go by without some ill informed rock throwing?

    1. Re:Flamewar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K. MySQL is a toy, and PostgreSQL is being used already in large scale (>1TB) databases. When properly compared, PostgreSQL is faster (execute in transactions to find out how much faster) and is also ACID compliant, so professional database designers can actually design a database, and then use it for implementation.
      Comparing MySQL and PostgreSQL is like comparing a squirt gun to the real thing.

  45. What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want people to be able to run individual servers on each of the hyperthreaded CPU's virtual CPUs?

  46. UML... by Edward+Teach · · Score: 1

    is a terrible acronym, since it already means Unified Modeling Language. Since User-mode is hyphenated, shouldn't it be UL? Oh, wait, that stands for Underwriter's Laboratory. Oh, well, they need to change the name.

    --

    Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.

  47. And that's a problem, because....? by hargettp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've used the OLAP stuff on SQL Server, and I honestly didn't find it much help. From what I saw, it was practically a *report writer* front-end on top of the underlying database--not nearly enough power for the problems my company has.

    True OLAP often involves many layers of analysis, with many steps of processing. I had hoped that SQL Server OLAP would help manage all that, but it doesn't do enough. To be fair, there are some nice tools to graphically create what amouont to some stored procedures, but after a while, an experienced SQL developer will just revert to lots and lots of stored procedures chained together in a job that runs on a regular basis. Consequently, all that mysterious logic about *how* a number in the middle of an OLAP report came to be calculated is still stored in a procedure that can't easily be modified. OLAP in SQL Server gives the illusion that analysis is easy, but, alas, it is not.

    I'd be curious to hear from others who have used SQL Server's OLAP and other tools like Cognos, Oracle, or Siebel, etc. What OLAP features *should* PostgreSQL adopt?

  48. Point-in-time recovery by yem · · Score: 1
    In addition to Fujitsu's additions, they are also doing point-in-time recovery. They have multiple replication solutions. It's an absolutely wonderful database to develop for.

    I'd trade most of these new features for that one right there. If you have a 10Gb database full of transactional data, you can't do full dumps continuously, but equally you can't afford to lose a day or even an hour of data since the last full dump.

    I know its being worked on. This is the one feature keeping me away from PostgreSQL. *fingers crossed for 7.5*



    --
    No, I did not read the f***ing article!
    1. Re:Point-in-time recovery by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      I think they've decided to do it for 7.5 for sure. They've had the infrastructure for it ever since they added the write-ahead logs, but just have never implemented all of the details.

    2. Re:Point-in-time recovery by Sxooter · · Score: 1

      Tablespaces is already in CVS, so unless some truly hideous, unfixable bug shows up, it should make it into beta come August or so.

      --

      --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
  49. acronym collision by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I thought the "UML" in the headline meant that Fujitsu funded "Universal Modeling Language" support in PostgreSQL. I figured that RDBMS designers were smart enough to put a rules processing engine into a layer compatible with their SQL processing. Especially now that there's work underway on "compilable UML". Oh well, back to the drawing board.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  50. Is VServer like Virtuozzo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using a VPS hosted using Virtuozzo and really love it.

    I've seen at least one hosting company switch from User Mode Linux (UML) to Virtuozzo this year for performance/resource reasons.

    Also, I think the most innovative UML hosting company is http://www.linode.com -- it would be my first pick when trying out UML with a hosting company. The best feature of that host is the ability for us to reinstall a linux distro via web interface (they offer several different distros). Pretty damned cool.

    I'm sticking with Virtuozzo for now but looking forward to trying out UML as soon as time allows. :)

    1. Re:Is VServer like Virtuozzo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is VServer like Virtuozzo?

      Yes, it is! And it's free. Granted Virtuozzo has all kinds of bells and wistles in the form of various web-based tools, but it's only a matter of time before those appear for VServer IMO. Alos Virtuozzo uses RedHat 7.3 as its base which is rather old, while VServer is already pretty stable on 2.6 kernels.

    2. Re:Is VServer like Virtuozzo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JVDS offers the same console-level access to allow you to change distros, etc.

  51. PostGreSQL needs online backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Any idea when online database backup will be implemented for PostGreSQL? PostGreSQL is enterprise-level with this sole exception!

    I mean, what 24x7 application does not need to backup the database while concurrently running transactions?

    1. Re:PostGreSQL needs online backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      PostgreSQL has had "hot backups" for a long, long time. Since it uses MVCC, this is quite easy for it. Unless you meant something else?

    2. Re:PostGreSQL needs online backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed. pgdumpall is not a hot backup. A hot backup is the ability to create a consistent backup of the database datafiles while the database is open.

  52. php/postgresql hosting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cheap php/postgresql hosting! http://sf.craigslist.org/sfc/cps/35211570.html

  53. UML by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

    Not to be rude, but who chose the name UML for User Mode Linux?

    Do they have a diagram or something I can look at? I want to really understand what User Mode Linux "is".

  54. Re:Hehe... by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this is flamebait. I can't help it. And you 50 Postgres users love it anyway, don't you?

    PgSQL is of my choice for a database.

    Superior technology is only understandable by superior elite intellect, as you admit.

    Yeah, this flamebait is better than yours.

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  55. Still trying to figure it out by macdaddy · · Score: 1

    I have given UML a try a number of times (I need it right now too!) but I've never figured it out. If anyone happens to have a link to a good HOWTO, whitepaper or guide I'd love to have it. I'm sure others would too.

  56. Is there any free failover solution for Postgres? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone has any experience to share? I would like to migrate from Ms SQL Server, but it seems that the only thing that management would consider is if there is a failover feature in Postgres.

    Any working solution?

  57. Re:Good to Hear... by chriskl · · Score: 1

    If you want a great PHP interface to PostgreSQL, try phpPgAdmin:

    http://phppgadmin.sourceforge.net/

  58. Performance and replication? by AmVidia+HQ · · Score: 1

    I'm currently using Mysql, and I am willing to switch to PGsql with the many more features it offers. But a few things I want to see some people give some comments:

    1. Performance. Specifically, how does it compare with Mysql? Some real app comparison would be very nice.
    2. Replication. Last time I checked, there is no mature, native, OSS implementation for master-slave type replication for syncing databases between servers.
    3. Windows binary. Mysql is painless to install on Windows, does PGsql have this yet? This is for development use. (production database on Windows is looking for trouble, I speak from experience)

    --
    VIVA1023.com | Political Fashion.
    1. Re:Performance and replication? by alvar-f · · Score: 1

      > Performance. Specifically, how does it compare with Mysql? Some real app comparison would be very nice.

      I made some smaller tests about this. As general rules:
      * for complex queries, Postgres is faster.
      * for lot's of parallel reads/writes, Postgres is faster.
      * for big databases, PostgreSQL is faster.
      * for single and non-concurrent writes, MySQL is faster.
      * for simple queries and small databases, MySQL is a little bit faster.

      For single writes I don't need top speed. So I don't need MySQL ... ;-)

      One example is a Select with GROUP BY on a VARCHAR column on a table with >500000 rows. MySQL takes > 3 seconds on a MyISAM Table, locking the whole table for write access. Postgres does the same *without* lock (write access is possible) in about 2 seconds. MySQL with innodb (no locking) takes more then 10 seconds. All on the same data, same machine and comparable memory configuration.

      MySQL and MyISAM is the hell when you have some expensive queries and want to write permanently to the same table or in general: when you have complex queries.

      Ciao
      Alvar, http://www.a-blast.de/statistik/ (still with MySQL :-( )

    2. Re:Performance and replication? by AmVidia+HQ · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tips, I'll be looking at PGsql for my future development. I run complex queries (full text) and Mysql table locking is getting on my nerves.

      --
      VIVA1023.com | Political Fashion.
  59. Re:Good to Hear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I have been using PHP with PotsgreSQL on my site (www.the-athenaeum.org) for about four years, with no problems. Or at least any problems have been due to my own lack of skill, not due to the PostgreSQL/PHP combo.

    We get about 400-500K hits a month and growing, serving up blobs (images of public domain artworks, we're sort of a Wikipedia for art) out of our db, and the bottleneck seems to be the processor, not the db or PHP. The site is usually pretty snappy.

    - Chris McCormick