Re: [HACKERS] Opportunity for a Radical Changes in Database Software
On Oct 28, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: I'd actually be curious what incremental changes you could see making to PostgreSQL for better in-memory operation. Ideas? It would be difficult to make PostgreSQL really competitive for in- memory operation, primarily because a contrary assumption pervades the entire design. You would need to rip out a lot of the guts of it. I was not even intending to suggest that it would be a good idea or trivial to adapt PostgreSQL to in-memory operation, but since I am at least somewhat familiar with the research I thought I'd offer a useful link that detailed the kinds of considerations involved. That said, I have seriously considered the idea since I have a major project that requires that kind of capability and there is some utility in using parts of PostgreSQL if possible, particularly since it was used to prototype it. In my specific case I also need to shoehorn a new type of access method into it as well that there is no conceptual support for, so it will probably be easier to build a (mostly) new database engine altogether. Personally, if I was designing a distributed in-memory database, I would use a somewhat more conservative set of assumptions than Stonebraker so that it would have a more general applicability. For example, his assumption of extremely short CPU times for a transaction (1 millisecond) are not even valid for some types of OLTP loads, never mind the numerous uses that are not strictly OLTP- like but which nonetheless are built on relatively short transactions; in the Stonebraker design this much latency would be a pathology. Unfortunately, if you remove that assumption, the design starts to unravel noticeably. Nonetheless, there are other viable design paths that while not over-fitted to OLTP still could offer large gains. I think the market is right for a well-designed distributed, in- memory database, but I think one would be starting with an architecture inferior for the purpose that would be hard to get away from if we made incremental changes to a solid disk-based engine. It seems short-term expedient but long-term bad engineering -- think MySQL. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] Opportunity for a Radical Changes in Database Software
On Oct 27, 2007, at 2:20 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: * J. Andrew Rogers: Everything you are looking for is here: http://web.mit.edu/dna/www/vldb07hstore.pdf It is the latest Stonebraker et al on massively distributed in-memory OLTP architectures. Ruby-on-Rails compiles into standard JDBC, but hides all the complexity of that interface. Hence, H-Store plans to move from C++ to Ruby-on-Rails as our stored procedure language. This reads a bit strange. Yeah, that's a bit of a WTF?. Okay, a giant WTF?. I could see using Ruby as a stored procedure language, but Ruby-on-Rails seems like an exercise in buzzword compliance. And Ruby is just about the slowest language in its class, which based on the rest of the paper (serializing all transactions, doing all transactions strictly in- memory) means that you would be bottlenecking your database node on the procedural language rather than the usual I/O considerations. Most of the architectural stuff made a considerable amount of sense, though I had quibbles with bits of it (I think the long history of the design makes some decisions look silly in a world that is now multi-core by default). The Ruby-on-Rails part is obviously fungible. Nonetheless, it is a good starting point for massively distributed in-memory OLTP architectures and makes a good analysis of many aspects of database design from that perspective, or at least I have not really seen anything better. I prefer a slightly more conservative approach that generalizes better in that space than what is suggested personally. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] Opportunity for a Radical Changes in Database Software
On Oct 25, 2007, at 8:05 AM, Dan wrote: In looking at current developments in computers, it seems we're nearing a point where a fundamental change may be possible in databases... Namely in-memory databases which could lead to huge performance improvements. ... The sites that use it see incredible performance increases, but often at the cost of not being able to provide versioned results that are guaranteed to be accurate. The big questions are then, how would you create a distributed in- memory database? Everything you are looking for is here: http://web.mit.edu/dna/www/vldb07hstore.pdf It is the latest Stonebraker et al on massively distributed in-memory OLTP architectures. J. Andrew Rogers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option
On Feb 28, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Jonah H. Harris wrote: Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, Sybase, Teradata, MySQL, and Firebird have a clever feature called page checksumming which I think we should copy because it's simple and effective at detecting page-level corruption due to torn pages and/or faulty storage hardware. Any system that does enough I/O will occasionally generate corrupted pages in the complete absence of any other detectable fault or hardware failure. A fair amount has been written about it with respect to large-scale computing and it happens often enough when systems start getting large that just about everyone implements software I/O checksumming eventually to deal with the problem. I simply assumed that PostgreSQL was doing the same since it is definitely used for systems that are large enough that this becomes a statistically significant issue. A popular alternative to CRC32 for this purpose is the significantly cheaper and almost as effective is the Adler32 algorithm. I know Google used this algorithm when they added checksumming to their database to tame inexplicable transient corruption. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers ---(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: [HACKERS] Acclerating INSERT/UPDATE using UPS
On Feb 10, 2007, at 9:33 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: The fundamental trouble with this mechanism is that a power outage can instantly turn a database into crud. One may try to mitigate that problem by supporting the memory device with multiple power supplies *and* multiple UPSes. Ask me about the time a year ago that I had a 24x7 database, with two power supplies connected to two UPSes on independent mains circuits, dropped dead because one UPS was overloaded (more than one server connected to it, apparently too much) and the other UPS was simply dead (undetected zombie UPS), when a catastrophic power failure killed both of the generator backed mains circuits. I wasn't pleased, but it happened nonetheless. A UPS is not a 100% guarantee of anything. They fail more often than they should. No amount of paranoia guarantees uptime. That said, I see plenty of use for loosening restrictions on databases where the contents do not matter and a little loss is acceptable. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Commit timestamp
On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:41 PM, Richard Troy wrote: It'd be great if Jan considers the blending of replication; any given DB instance shouldn't be only a master/originator or only a slave/ subscriber. A solution that lets you blend replication strategies in a single db is, from my point of view, very important. It might be constructive to define what a minimal complete set of replication primitives actually is in addition to which ones should be implemented. In addition to master/slave models, you have Paxos algorithms and dynamic reconfiguration models in literature that can utilize many of the same primitives but which are very different in implementation. I see the value of Jan's proposal, but perhaps it would be better to step back and make some assertions about the nature of the core capabilities that will be supported in some broader picture. Having a theoretically (mostly) complete set of usable primitives would be an incredibly powerful feature set. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(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: [HACKERS] pgsql: Fix for plpython functions; return true/false for boolean,
On Jan 30, 2007, at 2:43 AM, Guido Goldstein wrote: Is it possible to tell me which python versions you want to support? Just as a hint: 2.5 is the current stable version. I support a lot of python on several platforms. For broad compatibility with pre-installed Python versions on recent OS versions, Python 2.3 support is essentially mandatory and there are few good reasons to not support it. I occasionally see Python 2.2 on really old systems by default, but it takes significantly more effort to support versions that old; the solution in my case is to upgrade Python to 2.3 or 2.4. Python 2.5 may be the current stable version, but vanilla source builds segfault on some Python code that runs fine in 2.3 and 2.4, strongly suggesting that it is not mature enough that I would put it anywhere near anything important (like a database). J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(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: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Data Loss
On Jan 26, 2007, at 2:22 AM, BluDes wrote: I have a problem with one of my costomers. I made a program that uses a PostgreSQL (win32) database to save its data. My customer claims that he lost lots of data reguarding his own clients and that those data had surely been saved on the database. My first guess is that he is the one who deleted the data but wants to blame someone else, obviously I can't prove it. Could it be possible for PostgreSQL to lose its data? Maybe with a file corruption? Could it be possible to restore these data? My program does not modify or delete data since its more like a log that only adds information. It is obviously possible to delete these logs but it requires to answer yes to 2 different warnings, so the data can't be deleted accidentally. I have other customers with even 10 times the amount of data of the one who claimed the loss but no problems with them. He obviously made no backups (and claims whe never told him to do them so we are responsible even for this) though the program has a dedicated Backup-section. I have seen this data loss pattern many, many times, and on Oracle too. The most frequent culprits in my experience: 1.) The customer screwed up big time and does not want to admit that they made a mistake, hoping you can somehow pull their butt out of the fire for free. 2.) Someone else sabotaged or messed up the customers database, and the customer is not aware of it. 3.) The customer deleted their own data and is oblivious to the fact that they are responsible. 4.) There is some rare edge case in your application that generates SQL that deletes all the data. There is always the possibility that there is in fact some data loss due to a failure of the database, but it is a rare kind of corruption that deletes a person's data but leaves everything else intact with no error messages, warnings, or other indications that something is not right. Given the description of the problem, I find an internal failure of the database to be a low probability reason for the data loss. Having run many database systems that had various levels of pervasive internal change auditing/versioning, often unbeknownst to the casual user, virtually all of the several data loss cases I've seen with a description like the above clearly fit in the cases #1-3 above when we went into the audit logs i.e. someone explicitly did the deleting. I cannot tell you how many times people have tried to pretend that the database lost or messed up their data and then been embarrassed when they discover that I can step through every single action they took to destroy their own data. I've never seen a single case like the one described above that was due to an internal database failure; when there is an internal database failure, it is usually ugly and obvious. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(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: [HACKERS] Interface of the R-tree in order to work with postgresql
On Oct 9, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 09:15:58AM -0500, jorge alberto wrote: I want to know how can I add a new spatial access method into the postgresql (I'm doing research on spatial access methods( reading a lot of papers and programming a lot too ) but also I want to know how can I add my new data structure( if someday i get it, of course =) ) in the postgresql, I mean where can i find the .h that describes the interface that a spatial access method, like the R-tree, must have in order to work with postgresql. I would start by reading the documentation, specifically the part about GiST. Once you have understood the concept and code there, go to reading the rtree code in the backend. That should answer almost all your questions. Index Access Methods (Ch. 48) for a more general interface may also be useful, since he implies that R-Tree is not the only spatial access method he is interested in. While some spatial access methods, such as R-Tree, are well-suited for a GiST implementation, it is not a particularly appropriate access method (assumption mismatch) for some other interesting spatial index types that a researcher might be interested in implementing. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers (who is also implementing new spatial indexes...) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] Fixed length datatypes.
On Jun 28, 2006, at 10:14 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All the geometric types that I'll never use in core, with few or no uses, including functions to operate on these types, and no UUID type... Hehe... To me, that's irony... :-) Interestingly, the superior geometry capability is driving a lot of recent migration from MySQL to PostgreSQL in my own experience, especially with PostGIS. The geometry parts may not get as much love as other parts, but they still get to leverage the very solid foundation they are built on top of. The geometry capability of MySQL is basically checklist in nature, as it lacks the more sophisticated indexing and query execution that is really required to get passable performance from queries with geometry in them. MySQL has similar geometry capability to PostgreSQL in theory if you don't look too closely, but in practice the engine is not up to the more rigorous demands of that kind of work. With the nascent rise of the geospatial web, it is going to become a lot more important than it has been. J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(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: [HACKERS] Table clustering idea
On Jun 27, 2006, at 9:39 AM, Jim C. Nasby wrote: I think one of the issues might have been: how will you handle other indexes on the table when you can no longer point them at an item (since items will need to move to maintain an IOT). There are clean ways to handle this. The table is organized on the primary key, a typical requirement for IOTs. Any indexes you add to IOT reference the primary key of the heap tuple. Since the heap and PK index are the same thing, external indexes use the PK as the tuple identifier. The only caveat is that this creates performance asymmetries. IOTs have significantly faster access through their primary keys but slower external index access since two B-Trees have to be traversed. An IOT is typically only used for tables that are only accessed through their primary key. Not supporting external indexes on IOTs is a functional implementation (and probably recommended in practice), though most real implementations allow external indexes if not always in their first version. J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(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: [HACKERS] New project launched : PostgreSQL GUI Installer for
On Jan 30, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: There is a reason that even Oracle has a graphical installer on Linux, because most people installing the software: A. Don't know how to use it B. Probably don't know how to use Linux C. Don't want to. Except that the Oracle graphical installer usually requires a non- trivial amount of command line kung-fu that alone is more complex than the entirety of the command line installation of PostgreSQL. Oracle installation is an unpleasant and painful process even under the best of circumstances, and I've never had one that required less effort than Postgres for a vanilla install. And I always install postgres from source. If ./configure; make; make install scares away people, sorting out the dependency hell getting the Oracle installer to even run on nominally supported platforms will definitely scare them away. A graphical installer for Unix is fine, but please, do not make it anything like Oracle's graphical installer. Oracle's graphical install process gives command line installs a good name for ease of use. J. Andrew Rogers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] Replication on the backend
On Dec 6, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: Eh, why would light limited delay be any slower than a disk on FC the same distance away? :) In any case, performance of PG on iscsi is just fine. You can't blame the network... Doing multimaster replication is hard because the locking primitives that are fine on a simple multiprocessor system (with a VERY high bandwidth very low latency interconnect between processors) just don't work across a network, so you're left finding other methods and making them work... Speed of light latency shows up pretty damn often in real networks, even relatively local ones. The number of people that wonder why a transcontinental SLA of 10ms is not possible is astonishing. The silicon fabrics are sufficiently fast that most well-designed networks are limited by how fast one can push photons through a fiber, which is significantly slower than photons through a vacuum. Silicon switch fabrics add latency measured in nanoseconds, which is effectively zero for many networks that leave the system board. Compared to single system simple SMP, a local cluster built on a first-rate fabric will have about an order of magnitude higher latency but very similar bandwidth. On the other hand, at those latencies you can increase the number of addressable processors with that kind of bandwidth by an order of magnitude, so it is a bit of a trade. However, latency matters a lot such that one would have to be a lot smarter about partitioning synchronization across that fabric even though one would lose nothing in the bandwidth department. But again, multimaster isn't hard because there of some inherently slow property of networks. Eh? As far as I know, the difficulty of multi-master is almost entirely a product of the latency of real networks such that they are too slow for scalable distributed locks. SMP is little more than a distributed lock manager implemented in silicon. Therefore, multi- master is hard in practice because we cannot drive networks fast enough. That said, current state-of-the-art network fabrics are within an order of magnitude of SMP fabrics such that they could be real contenders, particularly once you get north of 8-16 processors. The really sweet potential is in Opteron system boards with Infiniband directly attached to HyperTransport. At that level of bandwidth and latency, both per node and per switch fabric, the architecture possibilities start to become intriguing. J. Andrew Rogers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] Replication on the backend
On Dec 6, 2005, at 11:42 PM, Markus Schiltknecht wrote: Does anybody have latency / roundtrip measurements for current hardware? I'm interested in: 1Gb Ethernet, 10 Gb Ethernet, InfiniBand, probably even p2p usb2 or firewire links? In another secret life, I know a bit about supercomputing fabrics. The latency metrics have to be thoroughly qualified. First, most of the RTT latency numbers for network fabrics are for 0 byte packet sizes, which really does not apply to anyone shuffling real data around. For small packets, high-performance fabrics (HTX Infiniband, Quadrics, etc) have approximately an order of magnitude less latency than vanilla Ethernet, though the performance specifics depend greatly on the actual usage. For large packet sizes, the differences in latency become far less obvious. However, for real packets a performant fabric will still look very good compared to disk systems. Switched fiber fabrics have enough relatively inexpensive throughput now to saturate most disk systems and CPU I/O busses; only platforms like HyperTransport can really keep up. It is worth pointing out that the latency of high-end network fabrics is similar to large NUMA fabrics, which exposes some of the limits of SMP scalability. As a point of reference, an organization that knows what they are doing should have no problem getting 500 microsecond RTT on a vanilla metropolitan area GigE fiber network -- a few network operators actually do deliver this on a regional scale. For a local cluster, a competent design can best this by orders of magnitude. There are a number of silicon limitations, but a system that connects the fabric directly to HyperTransport can drive several GB/s with very respectable microsecond latencies if the rest of the system is up to it. There are Opteron system boards now that will drive Infiniband directly from HyperTransport. I know Arima/Rioworks makes some (great server boards generally), and several other companies are either making them or have announced them in the pipeline. These Opteron boards get pretty damn close to Big Iron SMP fabric performance in a cheap package. Given how many companies have announced plans to produce Opteron server boards with Infiniband fabrics directly integrated into HyperTransport, I would say that this is the future of server boards. And if postgres could actually use an infiniband fabric for clustering a single database instance across Opteron servers, that would be very impressive... J. Andrew Rogers ---(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: [HACKERS] Reducing the overhead of NUMERIC data
On 11/1/05 2:38 PM, Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, most databases I've used limit NUMERIC to 38 digits, presumably to fit length info into 1 or 2 bytes. So there's something to be said for a small numeric type that has less overhead and a large numeric (what we have today). The 38 digit limit is the decimal size of a 128-bit signed integer. The optimization has less to do with the size of the length info and more to do with fast math and fixed structure size. J. Andrew Rogers ---(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: [HACKERS] Alternative variable length structure
On 9/8/05 9:53 AM, Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com wrote: Hmmm. Seems like these would be different data types from the standard ones we deal with. I can see the value for data warehousing, for example. Wouldn't this require creating, for example, a SHORTTEXT type? Or were you planning this to handle VARCHAR(6) and the like? If so, how would we deal with users who change the length via ALTER TABLE? If I am reading the patch correctly (and I may not be), changing the length via ALTER TABLE would not affect anything because the header length is variable per type instance in the table. This appears to be an alternate encoding for VARCHAR(n) and similar. This is not dissimilar to how ASN.1 BER prefix encodes type lengths, an encoding widely used in wire protocols. This can save quite a few bytes in many cases, particularly when storing short byte strings (for ASN.1, even integers and similar are encoded this way to shave bytes on them as well but that seems excessive). It would be useful to see how encoding/decoding cost balances out the more compact representation in terms of performance. J. Andrew Rogers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] Call for 7.5 feature completion
On 8/25/05 4:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have gone a long way now, even though it was only a year ago. My question for everyone on this list is: What are the few remaining big features that you see missing for PostgreSQL? Or, slightly different, what are people's most wanted features? Table partitioning would be huge, but it looks like that is on its way. Index-organized tables are the most significant thing at the top of my wish list, as that would generate a huge performance increase for much of what I spend my time on with PostgreSQL. There is currently no good way to approximate it. J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] US Patents vs Non-US software ...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:22:58 +0200 Many countries do not grant software patents so it is not likely that IBM applied through PCT since a refusal in one country may cause to patent to be refused in all countries. Contrary to popular misconception, virtually all countries grant software patents. The problem is that people have applied the term software patent to USPTO-specific lameness like one-click shopping, which really is outside the scope of traditional software patents. While most countries do not grant patents for this flavor of frivolousness, they do grant hard-theory algorithm design patents across virtually all types of machinery (including virtual machinery). Traditional software design patents are structurally and functionally indistinguishable from chemical process patents, which are generally recognized as valid in most countries. Software patents have to have novelty that survives reduction to general process design (and the ARC algorithm looks like it qualifies) if you want most countries to grant it. The problem with USPTO and so-called software patents is that they allow people to patent what is essentially prior art with re-named variables. Chemical process patents are a good analogy because literally every argument used against software patents could be used against chemical process patents, which no one apparently finds controversial. What often passes for material novel-ness in software processes with the USPTO would never fly for chemical processes with the same USPTO. If someone invents a better pipe alloy for carrying chemical fluids, you cannot re-patent all chemical processes with the novelty being that you use a better type of pipe -- that change is not material to the chemical process, even if it improves the economics of it in some fashion. The only thing patentable would be the superior alloy design in the abstract. Most of the lame software patents are lame because reduction to machine process design gives you something that is decidedly non-novel. In other words, the novel-ness is the semantic dressing-up of a non-novel engineering process. cheers, j. andrew rogers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: 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: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL as an application server
On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 22:27, Jonathan M. Gardner wrote: A few nights ago, I implemented some of my application logic in PostgreSQL via PL/PythonU. I was simply amazed at what I was able to do. My question becomes: Why not get rid of the middle layer and move it into the databse entirely? In the mid-90s, I was a lead on just such an app using Oracle PL/SQL. IIRC, it was about a half million lines of code. At that time, Oracle hadn't seen anything quite like it and was pretty interested in what we'd done. I'll add that if we knew what it would be like when we started, we probably would have done it somewhat differently than we did. The advantage is that you have very tight integration with the database and there are few or no external dependencies to worry about. For database heavy applications that require some level of portability, this isn't a bad way to do development. The major disadvantage is that the development environment and tools for in-database languages aren't nearly as rich as your typical standalone environment, which makes programming a pain in the ass for many types of codes. I might have missed something in the intervening years, but I don't think anyone has really bridged that gap. The database guys generally don't like running application code in their database, mostly because it creates new failure modes and problems that they have to manage. For example, at least in older versions of Oracle, if you accidentally programmed an infinite loop or some other busy non-functioning state, it took the DBA to kill it. In the course of application development, this could happen many, many times as code was being debugged, much to the annoyance of the DBAs. That said, I don't see any obvious reason why it couldn't be done well with a moderate amount of effort. j. andrew rogers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: 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: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL as an application server
On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 10:53, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Although the gap still exists within the environment itself, one significant advantage with PostgreSQL is you can use a more native (to the programmer anyway) language to generate your logic. With PostgreSQL alone you can use plPerl, plPython and plPHP. The language itself hasn't change in it's implementation of the pL. You just have to remember to make all ' a '' :) (at least for the most part). One of the things I very much like about PostgreSQL is that it feels like more of a programmer's RDBMS than Oracle. As in the needs and preferences of programmers were obviously given a higher priority in the design of PostgreSQL. I find this to be a very attractive feature and a good thing. This is a case of where a focus on the needs and preferences of hackers in the development of the software by hackers has worked out pretty well, at least for me. People say that is a bad thing about a lot of OSS, but I actually think it was needed in RDBMS software. j. andrew rogers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: 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: [HACKERS] LinuxTag wrapup
On Sun, 2004-07-04 at 19:57, Tom Lane wrote: Anyone who needs this has always been able to make it trivially (though you once had to invent a random column name for the one required column). In Oracle, DUAL is treated specially internally for performance reasons, since it is so heavily used. Making a table with the same name would probably be a serviceable but under-performing migration mechanism. Does anyone have the foggiest idea why they named it DUAL? Doesn't seem a very mnemonic choice to me... There is no real authoritative answer to this, and it has long been a mystery. One semi-official version of the story is that it was originally an internal table with two rows used for some operations. How that became a single row scratch pad table is a mystery, since even the Oracle old-timers I know have no recollection of it ever being anything but what it currently is. Others claim it is a reference to 1x1 matrix operations. There are a number of different stories that people have heard -- I've heard three or four completely unrelated explanations from long-time Oracle folks -- and most of them are plausible. It is one of those things we will probably never know. Whatever its historical purpose, DUAL has been so pervasively used in the Oracle universe for so long that giving it a better name would break virtually every Oracle application in existence. It is an institution unto itself. j. andrew rogers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] What can we learn from MySQL?
solvable problems. I think improved default product packaging would remove 80% of the impediment to more widespread adoption. There is no *technical* reason things should be done this way and it might even go against the sensibilities of many current users. But it would go a long way toward widening the audience. j. andrew rogers ---(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
[HACKERS] PITR for replication?
I may be completely missing the point here, but it looks to me as though the PITR archival mechanism is also most of a native replication facility. Is there anyone reason this couldn't be extended to replication, and if so, is anyone planning on using it as such? My memory is fuzzy on this point, but I seem to recall that this is (was?) how replication is more-or-less done for many of the big commercial RDBMS. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
