Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PostgreSQL 8.2 Released

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the faster-so-they-say dept.

An anonymous reader writes to let us know that PostgreSQL 8.2 has been released (bits, release notes). 8.2 is positioned as a performance release. PostgreSQL it is still missing the SQL:2003 Window Functions that are critical in business reporting, so Oracle and DB2 will still win out for OLAP/data warehouse applications.

9 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. Performance? by Ant+P. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How fast is it against MyISAM? (MySQL's main selling point for a lot of people)

    1. Re:Performance? by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have to be careful when you ask a question like that.

      What's faster, a Ferrari or a semi-trailer truck? If you are transporting a bunch of bannanas, the Ferrari. If you are transproting 50,000 pounds of bannanas, the semi wins.

      In other words, the problem with your question is there is no single thing that is "speed". There's only speed to do a certain class of tasks.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Performance? by jadavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, shipping with that setting disabled doesn't do much to improve MySql's data integrity reputation.

      Not only that, one of the major selling points of MySQL is that it has many applications. If you deviate from the standard configuration, many of those apps will break. That's one of the problems with the "configureware" mentality, just like in PHP, except that MySQL is lower on the stack so it's worse.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    3. Re:Performance? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a defense?

      'Real' databases don't have a setting for 'screw data integrity'. Data integrity is kind of one of the central points of a relational database.

      It just shows it's background as a toy, not a real database.

    4. Re:Performance? by MadAhab · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Should be modded up.

      Now for the MySQL fanboi's, I do have to ask: why not use SQLite for the same purpose? Either you need a dumb data store or you need a Real Database. If you need a dumb data store, why not go for the one that does the best job of being a minimal data store - and use SQLite? If you need Real Database features (and I do), MySQL just hasn't caught up to PostgreSQL, and is even losing ground, after all this time.

      The hole in what I'm saying, of course, is replication. PostgreSQL 8.2 looks like it's making progress in this respect. I haven't played around with warm stand-by's, but I'm sure someday I'll need it. When I do, log shipping looks like it will do nicely!

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
  2. Gotta love it... by chill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    PostgreSQL it is still missing the SQL:2003 Window Functions that are critical in business reporting, so Oracle and DB2 will still win out for OLAP/data warehouse applications.

    Bullshit, pure and simple. This is nothing more than marketing-speak and you should be ashamed.

    I'm not saying that SQL-2003 Window Functions are useless, I'm saying your statement about them being "critical" in business reporting is bullshit. Did no one do business reporting before this standard came out? What the hell did people do in 2002? Are all those MS-SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 8i servers going to fall down in shame? I think not.

    I see these comments all the time, usually in marketing brochures from a software vendor touting a new feature. They make it sound like all other products are steaming piles of shit if they don't have whiz-bang-feature #16. They like avoiding any conversation that goes "But, I've been using your product and it works great. Are you telling me your product (last rev) is a steaming pile of shit? That implies if I upgrade, next year you're going to be telling me how THIS rev you are so loudly praising is also a steaming pile of shit."

      Charles (had enough marketing-speak for this year)

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Gotta love it... by Shados · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It IS a critical feature. Like how CSS support is a critical feature for the web. But in both cases, no one has all the critical features, and its annoying as all hells.

      Of course, using the extra stuff the databases support (PL/SQL, T-SQL, etc), we manage. But for example, the "workaround" for the window functions are not only ugly, but often quite misunderstood, on top of being difficult to use through dynamic sql (if thats your cup of tea). I keep seeing people using inefficient paging methods in SQL Server 2000 for example, when (while not supporting the actual function to do it "right") there are a few extremely efficient ways. So those features are indeed critical.

      A bit like a certain quite popular database engine that shall remain nameless didn't support stored procedures for like ever. People work around it just fine, but...

      Database engines are almost consistantly -behind- user's needs, even the fancy commercial ones, nevermind the incomplete ones.

    2. Re:Gotta love it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Critical? CSS is critical for the web? Alternative ways of doing something that's been done forever are critical?

      You fail completely to understand the CONCEPT at work here. 'Critical' means you CANNOT DO SOMETHING WITHOUT IT. You have failed -- by your own admission -- to even state, let alone prove, that anything you're talking about is more than a nice alternative, let alone critical.

      Who the hell modded that insightful? Give me a break. dictionary.reference.com, now this post had better get a +5 informative, because there you will find the TRUE MEANING OF THIS WORD -- if they aren't missing a 'critical' new widget that can efficiently replace the search text box.

      Your statement that DB engines tend to be behind users' "needs" doesn't mean much when a "need" is something "critical," thus definitely not something you should comment on.

  3. Re:Watch out, MySQL. by Local+Loop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's because MySQL runs like dogmeat on FreeBSD, no matter which threading libraries you use. I know, I just switched from FreeBSD to Linux for our database servers. The performance difference was astounding - approximately 60% gain just from switching to Linux.

    For us, PostgreSQL is a lot slower than MySQL on the same hardware. But our workload is not typical by any stretch so YMMV.

    Try comparing PostgreSQL and MySQL, both running on Linux and I'll think you'll be surprised.