Re: [GENERAL] masking the code
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Scott Mead wrote: > >It is important to note (as many people have already pointed out) that > both EnterpriseDB and Oracle's wrap functionality is declared as a 100% > guarantee that nobody can read your code. As with many different types of > security (i.e. the 3 foot high fence) this is really just a deterrent to > most people who either aren't capable of reverse engineering or are just not > interested in the first place. > s/is declared/is NOT declared/g :) -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com
Re: [GENERAL] Need help using function
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Bob Pawley wrote: > However, perhaps I don't understand the idea of a function. Please review the manual for examples. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/plpgsql.html Specifically, http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/plpgsql-structure.html -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com
Re: [GENERAL] does postgres has the same limitation as MySQL?
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Chris Browne wrote: > tekion writes: > > I know that MySQL can only use one index at at time for query. Does > > Postgres has this same limitation? For example, the following query: This is false for many cases since MySQL 5.0. http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/index-merge-optimization.html -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com
Re: [GENERAL] pl/proxy and sequence generation
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Igor Katson wrote:
> So, should I make a wrapper in e.g. PL/pgsql for every insert function
> writen in PL/Proxy to remove the sequence from the argument list and to call
> the sequence generator?
> Is there a better way to do that?
Why not put the sequence on your main PL/Proxy hub and call the function with:
SELECT some_func(nextval('my_seq'), foo, bar, baz, ...);
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] How are locks managed in PG?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Christophe wrote: > Playing the straight man, I have to ask: Scalability issues with locks in PG > vs Oracle? (in slow motion) no. Locks aren't something particular I'd like to discuss, this topic just came from a post upthread. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] How are locks managed in PG?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:35 AM, James B. Byrne wrote: > I think that to describe either OS or commercial software as better or > worse is misleading. The most that can be said is that each approach > serves a different purpose and exists in a different environment. Well said. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] How are locks managed in PG?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > The other difference is that I said it jokingly, whereas you (Jonah) > seem to be bitter about the whole matter. Well, it wasn't clear and I was just in a generally bad mood. Usually you'd add a :) at the end, which you didn't this time. So, I wasn't sure whether you were being serious or not. I'm only bitter about people bashing things they don't know just for the sake of bashing them. It wasn't anything directly against you, it's just that the anti-any-other-database types of comments seem to perpetuate more misunderstanding of the other systems. For the record, the rest of your post was full of information, so I know that's not what you were doing. It was just the aforementioned comment, which I wasn't sure was a joke. That's why my response to you was written as a question rather than a lengthy discussion of how/why Oracle does things that way. -Jonah -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] How are locks managed in PG?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Geoffrey wrote: > I still haven't seen a post regarding the Oracle scalability issue. Where is > the data?? You mean the PG scalability issue in comparison to Oracle? -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] How are locks managed in PG?
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > The difference is HE put forth an opinion about the pg developers > being smarter, but you put forth what seems like a statement of fact > with no evidence to back it up. One is quite subjective and open for > debate on both sides, and often to good effect. The other is a > statement of fact regarding scalability in apparently all usage > circumstances, since it wasn't in any way clarified if you were > talking about a narrow usage case or all of the possible and / or > probably ones. Agreed. It's just that, because I know quite a few of the engineers working on Oracle and SQL Server, it generally pisses me off to see people make blanket statements about one group being smarter than another when they probably have no basis for comparison. It's all good though, I'm just cranky tonight. -Jonah -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] How are locks managed in PG?
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> Having dealt with cust service for a few commercial dbs, I can safely >> say I get way better service from way smarter people when I have a >> problem. And I don't have a lot of problems. > > Clarificiation: That's saying I get better service and such from pg > users / developers than anywhere else. I'd agree with that. Unless you have lots of $$$ and/or know someone at the commercial companies, it takes a lot of work to get a hold of someone knowledgeable. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] How are locks managed in PG?
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 9:42 PM, David Fetter wrote: > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 08:46:15PM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >> >> Oracle on the other hand stores the lock information directly in >> >> the data block that is locked, thus the number of locks does not >> >> affect system performance (in terms of managing them). >> >> >> >> I couldn't find any description on which strategy PG applies. >> > >> > None of the above. We're smarter than everyone else. >> >> Which is why Oracle's locks are more scalable than PG's? > > You've been talking about your super-secret test which you allege, > quite implausibly, I might add, to have Oracle (8i, even!) blowing > PostgreSQL's doors off for weeks now. > > Put up, or shut up. Same to the standard PG B.S. responses such as, "None of the above. We're smarter than everyone else." When's the last time Alvaro used or tuned Oracle? Does he have a clue about how Oracle locks scale? Stop complaining. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] How are locks managed in PG?
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Oracle on the other hand stores the lock information directly in the data >> block that is locked, thus the number of locks does not affect system >> performance (in terms of managing them). >> >> I couldn't find any description on which strategy PG applies. > > None of the above. We're smarter than everyone else. Which is why Oracle's locks are more scalable than PG's? -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] converter pgplsql funcion
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:37 AM, paulo matadr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I work with oracle and have poor experience in pg/plsql. > anybody can help me with translate from pl/sql in pg/plsql in code > below: See OraToPg: You can download it here: http://pgfoundry.org/projects/ora2pg/ You can read about it and using it here: http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:ko5k7eHQvrgJ:kb.cospa-project.org/retrieve/4051/chapter6.pdf+%22Bridging+Tool:+OraToPG%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] MVCC and index-only read
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Thomas Kellerer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmm. I was not talking about an index _fast full_ scan, I was talking about > index scans in general. Personally I have never seen Oracle using a table > scan (whatever kind) if all columns in the select are present in the index. > > And the manual actually suggests the same: > > "If the statement accesses only columns of the index, then Oracle reads the > indexed column values directly from the index, rather than from the table" > http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14211/optimops.htm#i52300 The manual is wrong. >> Those are essentially clustered indexes, and they're not quite stored >> exactly the same.. >> > Hmm, my understanding of a clustered index, that it "orders" the table data > according to the index, but there is still "table data" and "index data", > right? > > That is a bit different to an index-organized table were only a B-Tree index > exists. This is not mandatory, but for my example (a link table with two PK > columns) only a B-Tree index is created. Well, clustered indexes mean different things to different vendors. Oracle's implementation stores the data with the index as does SQL Server, but in a little different fashion. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] High Availability for PostgreSQL on Windows 2003.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Pietro Tedesco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We have an instance of PostgreSQL on Windows 2003 with some application > and our customer have asked for solution > 24x7 without human intervention for problem on the hardware/software > primary instance. > Actualy there is a solution with standby. > Is there a product of High Availability for PostgreSQL on Windows 2003? I successfully configured an active/passive cluster using Double-Take Software with Postgres 8.3 on Windows2003. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] MVCC and index-only read
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Off topic much? Hey, all I did was make a joke; other people wanted to get all *correct* about it :) Anyway, as this has been discussed at least twenty times before, this is a waste of a thread. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] MVCC and index-only read
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh, and citation needed. I don't remember seeing anything about > oracle using indexes as sole storage units back in 8i Your memory-foo is weak. See ORGANIZATION INDEX: http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/A87860_01/doc/server.817/a85397/statem3e.htm#2061671 -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] MVCC and index-only read
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> They aren't borrowing anything, Oracle has had this functionality >> since at least Oracle 8i (1999). > > Whoa, calm down Francis. My name's not Francis :) > I'm not suggesting they stole it or something. Just that they're using > the same basic concepts. Hmm... --- snip > Sounds like they're borrowing the code from innodb that does much the same > thing You can't borrow something you started developing prior to InnoDB's release. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] MVCC and index-only read
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sounds like they're borrowing the code from innodb that does much the > same thing. In Innodb, if a field is indexed, it lives only as an > index, not in the table and an index at the same time. They aren't borrowing anything, Oracle has had this functionality since at least Oracle 8i (1999). -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] MVCC and index-only read
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Thomas Kellerer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If all the columns from the select list are available in the index, then > Oracle will always prefer the index scan over a table scan (at least I have > never seen something else). Even for a SELECT that returns all rows of the > table. No, it doesn't always prefer index fast full scan. > They are taking this concept even further with index organized tables, where > no real "table data" exists, everything is stored in the index (quited nice > for e.g. link tables that only consist of two or three integer columns) Those are essentially clustered indexes, and they're not quite stored exactly the same.. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] MVCC and index-only read
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Scara Maccai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SELECT A FROM myTAB where A <1 > > only uses the index (if there's an index defined for A) in Oracle. Well, not exactly. That's called a "covered" index because the query could be satisfied directly from the index (the attribute is covered by the index). Oracle sometimes satisfies it with an index fast full scan, but not always; it depends on the cost of other access methods and/or what Oracle believes is currently in cache. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] MVCC and index-only read
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Sam Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It makes sense to me, >> but I don't understand is how other databases (such as Oracle) do it. > > There are tradeoffs in both directions; [...] but Oracle's way is more > optimized For the most part, that's all you needed to say :) -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] syncing with a MySQL DB
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Ernesto Quiñones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I use dbi-link, work fine, but I have problems when I call mysql > tables "linked" and these tables are big, maybe a millon records, the > answers is really slow, I need to wait 5 or more minutes to have an > answer in a single query like this "select * from table limit 10", I > am thinking maybe dbi-link download all the data to pgsql before to > give me the answer. Yes, that's what Postgres is doing. DBI-link is currently incapable of pushing down the predicate to the remote system because Postgres can't give it access to the predicate. > Anybody knows how improve this? If I have to push the predicate down, I'll generally write a set-returning function which takes some of the predicate, limit, and offset info to build a dynamic sql query against the remote database using dblink. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] syncing with a MySQL DB
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Brandon Metcalf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK. I'll dig in and can probably figure everything out. I'll contact > David if I can't. You should try http://www.anysql.net/en/software/refresh_mysql.zip It's written in Perl and designed to replicate Oracle->MySQL, but you could easily emulate the Oracle-side by creating triggers in PG to capture the changes. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] More schema design advice requested
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Richard Broersma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Matthew Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't have the book in front of me at the moment, but I remember > this exact problem and a unique solution using a schema redesign > around skill sets that would return results very quickly. The method > described in the query was referred to as "full disjunction". Perhaps you can try: http://pgfoundry.org/projects/fulldisjunction/ -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Federated Server
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 11:57 PM, searchelite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any capability of PostgreSQL to become a federated server? See http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2008-06/msg00182.php -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Import German Number Format
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Tim Semmelhaack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The numbers are formatted with decimal comma ',' (as usual in Germany) > instead of the decimal point '.' > > When I try to import this data Postgres crashes, so I think I have to > change a parameter with SET? Does anybody know which parameter I have > to change? Independent of locale-related settings, I don't believe PG will accept a comma as input in this case. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Free Cache Memory (Linux) and Postgresql
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:33 AM, Denis Gasparin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi. > > I'm evaluating to issue the drop_caches kernel command (echo 3 > > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches) in order to free unused pagecache, directory > entries and inodes. > > I'm thinking to schedule the command during low load moments after > forcing a sync command. > > I wonder if this can cause pgsql problems of any kind. Any idea? Yes, it can. Postgres relies heavily on the OS' file system cache, if you wipe it out, you're going to have quite an I/O storm on a large database. What are you trying to accomplish? By itself, sync will flush all dirty file system blocks to disk and leave them in memory. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-www] PostgreSQL user documentation wiki open for business
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm pleased to announce that wiki.postgresql.org is now open for business! Awesome! -- Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Undetected corruption of table files
On 8/27/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Indeed. In fact, the most likely implementation of this (refuse to do > anything with a page with a bad CRC) would be a net loss from that > standpoint, because you couldn't get *any* data out of a page, even if > only part of it had been zapped. At least you would know it was corrupted, instead of getting funky errors and/or crashes. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Undetected corruption of table files
On 8/27/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > that and the lack of evidence that they'd actually gain anything I find it somewhat ironic that PostgreSQL strives to be fairly non-corruptable, yet has no way to detect a corrupted page. The only reason for not having CRCs is because it will slow down performance... which is exactly opposite of conventional PostgreSQL wisdom (no performance trade-off for durability). -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] [PERFORM] Parrallel query execution for UNION ALL Queries
On 7/18/07, Benjamin Arai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But I want to parrallelize searches if possible to reduce the perofrmance loss of having multiple tables. PostgreSQL does not support parallel query. Parallel query on top of PostgreSQL is provided by ExtenDB and PGPool-II. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
On 6/18/07, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It would appear that this was the flame-fest that was predicted. Particularly as this has been copied to five lists. If you all want to have an argument about what Oracle should or should not do, could you at least limit it to one list? Yeah, Josh B. asked it to be toned down to the original list which should've been involved. Which I think should be pgsql-admin or pgsql-advocacy... your thoughts? I think the Oracle discussion is over, David T. just needs URL references IMHO. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yeah funny how you didn't do that ;) (of course neither did I). I agree, an oops on my part :) It is amazing how completely misguided you are in this response. I haven't said anything closed minded. I only responded to your rather antagonistic response to a reasonably innocuous question of: "As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? " I wasn't responding to you, just to the seemingly closed-mindedness of the original question/statement. We're all aware of the reasons, for and against, proprietary system licenses prohibiting benchmarking. It is a good question to ask, and a good question to discuss. Certainly, but can one expect to get a realistic answer to an, "is Oracle fearing something" question on he PostgreSQL list? Or was it just a backhanded attempt at pushing the topic again? My vote is for the latter; it served no purpose other than to push the competitiveness topic again. I haven't seen any bashing going on yet. Shall we start with the closed mindedness and unfairness of per cpu license and support models? Not preferably, you make me type too much :) -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org/
Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that ask? As many times as necessary. Funny how the anti-proprietary-database arguments can continue forever and no one brings up the traditional RTFM-like response of, "hey, this was already discussed in thread XXX, read that before posting again." 1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti-proprietary which is perfectly legitimate. As long as closed-mindedness is legitimate, sure. 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. They may well have a lot to fear, but that doesn't mean they do; anything statement in that area is pure assumption. I'm in no way saying we can't compete, I'm just saying that the continued closed-mindedness and inside-the-box thinking only serves to perpetuate malcontent toward the proprietary vendors by turning personal experiences into sacred-mailing-list gospel. All of us have noticed the anti-MySQL bashing based on problems with MySQL 3.23... Berkus and others (including yourself, if I am correct), have corrected people on not making invalid comparisons against ancient versions. I'm only doing the same where Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft are concerned. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question? -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
On 6/18/07, David Tokmatchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Scalability ? Performance? Benchmark ? Availability ? Architecture ? Limitation : users, volumes ? Resouces needed ? Support ? Aside from the Wikipedia database comparison, I'm not aware of any direct PostgreSQL-to-Oracle comparison. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] [SQL] PostgreSQL to Oracle
On 3/16/07, David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DBI-Link has a way to push predicates to the remote side, ... As Ezequias asked about migrating an application, I'm not quite sure why we're discussing this. Using HSODBC to move data permanently is quite good assuming you have no data type issues. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] [SQL] PostgreSQL to Oracle
On 3/15/07, Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Do you find this works well? I've used it from some older Oracle instances connecting back into PostgreSQL and the results I had have been flakey at best. It really just depends on the data types in use... but I've never really had anything I'd call, "flakey" happen this way. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] [SQL] PostgreSQL to Oracle
On 3/9/07, Ezequias Rodrigues da Rocha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is it a simple action to convert a database from PostgreSQL to Oracle ? Yes, relatively. Has someone any idea ? There's a couple ways to do this, but I'd recommend first using pg_dump to export schema only. Your functions and triggers would need to be rewritten, but assuming they're in PL/pgSQL, it's a fairly trivial task to translate them into PL/SQL. As far as the views and sequences are concerned, pull them out of the pg_dump export and re-run them in TOAD, SQL*Plus, or your favorite tool. As far as the type goes, I'm not quite sure what you're doing with it or how it's used, but it should also be easy to migrate. To copy the data and table definitions, I'd use a database link (on the Oracle side) with hsodbc connecting to your PostgreSQL system via ODBC. Now that my advice is done with, could you explain why you need to move to Oracle from PostgreSQL? -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] One of our own begins a new life
On 9/15/06, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tomorrow one of our own, Devrim Gunduz is becoming a man. He is sucking it up, and committing to the cvs repo of project marriage. Congratulations Devrim! -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] New project launched : PostgreSQL GUI
I had to deal with an installer written in python and several in Java... IMHO, Java would be a better language for this and you could build off some nice OSS installers that already exist (such as IzPack). Just my 2 cents :) On 1/30/06, Devrim GUNDUZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi,On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 22:04 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:>> BTW, gcc is not installed on by default AFAIR.>> Wow, how do you update the kernel each week? :)>> More seriously, I know under FreeBSD, one of the first things that gets > done after installing is to customize the kernel to get rid of all the> 'cruft' part of the generic kernel, I take it that this isn't something> that ppl do with Linux?On systems that have a packaging system, you are supposed to download and install vendor kernels. There is "no need" to build the kernel.However, if you want to build, then you need to install developmentenvironment.On my RHEL boxes, I do never ever recompile the kernel since Red Hat does not provide support if I do so :)Regards,--The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 supportManaged Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/---(end of broadcast)---TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] mirroring oracle database in pgsql
I wouldn't say it's enterprise-grade, but one could probably make it work. Sean Davis wrote: There is DBI-link, but this probably isn't an "enterprise" solution http://www.pervasive-postgres.com/postgresql/tidbits.asp Sean On Jun 13, 2005, at 2:31 PM, Jonah H. Harris wrote: The contrib/dblink module only works for creating a database link to another PostgreSQL database. I'm working on a dblink_ora which allows you to connect to an 8i, 9i, or 10g system the same way. dblink_ora is based on dblink, not dblink_tds (for SQL Server) so it has more features. Also, I'm using the Oracle Instant Client libraries/SDK, so you don't need to do the whole Oracle Client install to use dblink_ora. I'm currently doing some alpha testing on it but if you would like to use it in beta, let me know. Also, if anyone has *a lot* of experience with OCI, I'd like to talk about a couple things. -Jonah Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Check out EnterprisDB: www.enterprisedb.com Chris Edward Peschko wrote: hey all, I'm trying to convince some people here to adopt either mysql or postgresql as a relational database here.. However, we can't start from a clean slate; we have a very mature oracle database that applications point to right now, and so we need a migration path. I went to the mysql folks, and it looks like its going to be quite a while before mysql is up to the task, so I thought I'd try pgsql. Anyways, I was thinking of taking the following steps: a) finding a Java API that transparently supports both postgresql and Oracle data access and stored procedure calls. b) instrumenting the Oracle database so that all tables support timestamps on data rows. c) mirroring the Oracle database in MySQL. d) making interface code connecting the MySQL database to the Oracle database (and both applying updates to the database as well as data. In other words, I'm looking to make a postgresql -> Oracle mirroring tool, and syncing the databases on a nightly basis, and I was wondering if anybody had experience with this sort of thing. As I see it, if we pull this off we could save quite a bit in licensing costs - we'd still have oracle around, but it would only be a datastore for talking to other oracle databases, and run by batch, not accessed by end users. However: a) I'm not sure how well stored procs, views, triggers and indexes transfer over from oracle to postgresql. b) I'm not sure how scalable postgresql is, and how well it handles multiprocessor support (we'd be using a six-processor box. As an aside, how much experience do people on the list have with enterprise db? I was thinking that they might alleviate the mirroring headaches quite a bit, but they don't seem to have a solaris port.. Anybody have a take on their db? Ed ( ps - if you subscribe to the mysql list, no you're not seeing double. I posted a very similar message on the mysql lists a couple of days ago.. ) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org -- Jonah H. Harris, UNIX Administrator | phone: 505.224.4814 Albuquerque TVI | fax: 505.224.3014 525 Buena Vista SE | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106| http://w3.tvi.edu/~jharris/ A hacker on a roll may be able to produce, in a period of a few months, something that a small development group (say, 7-8 people) would have a hard time getting together over a year. IBM used to report that certain programmers might be as much as 100 times as productive as other workers, or more. -- Peter Seebach ---(end of broadcast)------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jonah H. Harris, UNIX Administrator | phone: 505.224.4814 Albuquerque TVI | fax: 505.224.3014 525 Buena Vista SE | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106| http://w3.tvi.edu/~jharris/ A hacker on a roll may be able to produce, in a period of a few months, something that a small development group (say, 7-8 people) would have a hard time getting together over a year. IBM used to report that certain programmers might be as much as 100 times as productive as other workers, or more. -- Peter Seebach ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] mirroring oracle database in pgsql
The contrib/dblink module only works for creating a database link to another PostgreSQL database. I'm working on a dblink_ora which allows you to connect to an 8i, 9i, or 10g system the same way. dblink_ora is based on dblink, not dblink_tds (for SQL Server) so it has more features. Also, I'm using the Oracle Instant Client libraries/SDK, so you don't need to do the whole Oracle Client install to use dblink_ora. I'm currently doing some alpha testing on it but if you would like to use it in beta, let me know. Also, if anyone has *a lot* of experience with OCI, I'd like to talk about a couple things. -Jonah Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Check out EnterprisDB: www.enterprisedb.com Chris Edward Peschko wrote: hey all, I'm trying to convince some people here to adopt either mysql or postgresql as a relational database here.. However, we can't start from a clean slate; we have a very mature oracle database that applications point to right now, and so we need a migration path. I went to the mysql folks, and it looks like its going to be quite a while before mysql is up to the task, so I thought I'd try pgsql. Anyways, I was thinking of taking the following steps: a) finding a Java API that transparently supports both postgresql and Oracle data access and stored procedure calls. b) instrumenting the Oracle database so that all tables support timestamps on data rows. c) mirroring the Oracle database in MySQL. d) making interface code connecting the MySQL database to the Oracle database (and both applying updates to the database as well as data. In other words, I'm looking to make a postgresql -> Oracle mirroring tool, and syncing the databases on a nightly basis, and I was wondering if anybody had experience with this sort of thing. As I see it, if we pull this off we could save quite a bit in licensing costs - we'd still have oracle around, but it would only be a datastore for talking to other oracle databases, and run by batch, not accessed by end users. However: a) I'm not sure how well stored procs, views, triggers and indexes transfer over from oracle to postgresql. b) I'm not sure how scalable postgresql is, and how well it handles multiprocessor support (we'd be using a six-processor box. As an aside, how much experience do people on the list have with enterprise db? I was thinking that they might alleviate the mirroring headaches quite a bit, but they don't seem to have a solaris port.. Anybody have a take on their db? Ed ( ps - if you subscribe to the mysql list, no you're not seeing double. I posted a very similar message on the mysql lists a couple of days ago.. ) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org -- Jonah H. Harris, UNIX Administrator | phone: 505.224.4814 Albuquerque TVI | fax: 505.224.3014 525 Buena Vista SE | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106| http://w3.tvi.edu/~jharris/ A hacker on a roll may be able to produce, in a period of a few months, something that a small development group (say, 7-8 people) would have a hard time getting together over a year. IBM used to report that certain programmers might be as much as 100 times as productive as other workers, or more. -- Peter Seebach ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
