Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage

Interview With The PostgreSQL Team 55

Posted by timothy from the glamor-and-decadence dept.
Gentu writes "OSNews features an interview with some members of the PostgreSQL team regarding the much needed replication feature, their competition to MySQL, their future plans and a "native" Windows/.NET port."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interview With The PostgreSQL Team More

Interview With The PostgreSQL Team

Comments Filter:

  • Replication and load-balancing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SpaFF ( 18764 ) on Monday April 21, 2003 @03:18PM (#5775140) Homepage
    I can't wait until PostgreSQL has these features. Once that happens Oracle will have to run and hide. Yeah I know a ton of people will reply to this saying that Postgres doesn't have nearly the feature set of Oracle and the like, but I think for 90% of people that need a fault-tolerant database the featureset of Postgres is more than enough.

    • Why do people use oracle?

      1) It's hyper expensive
      2) the support organization is far from fantastic
      3) It requires expensive talent to maintain

      The answer to all of these issues is 'Name recognition'. Joe Average has at least heard of Oracle. CEO's and CIO's associate it with quality.

      Currently, for 'high end' databases where 'high end' is defined by either CEO's or serious amounts of data, Oracle and DB2 (nee UDB or Universal Data Base) are wins.

      To a corperation, nothing is more important than their data.
      • Why do people use oracle?

        Beacuse they have a large, aggressive sales force and extensive marketting.
      • Have you actually used Oracle?

        1: Yes...Oracle is expensive. You get what you pay for. It is an excellent database.
        2: Oracle *database* support is the finest support group I have ever dealt with...*period*. Their other groups leave something to be desired but the people who support the database product know their shit well and all of my issues have been resolved quickly.
        3: Bullshit. Especially with the release of 8i R3 and above. It takes less to maintain Oracle with every release. It used to take expe

  • three line summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by PSwim ( 111056 ) on Monday April 21, 2003 @03:18PM (#5775144) Homepage

    Being an avid PostgreSQL user, I was hoping for some interesting information in this article. Silly me.

    The (sadly disappointing) three line summary:

    • Replication is working. Kind of. (no details)
    • PostgreSQL has lots of features.
    • A windows port is scheduled for this summer.

    Am I the only one that things the editors should've rejected this article?

    • Re:three line summary (Score:2, Informative)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 )
      Replication is working. Kind of. (no details)

      Pretty much, and it pisses me off. There are about 5 projects, all in alpha or beta. There is still no official replication, and definitely no production quality replication.

      I've decided I'm just going to have to write an abstraction layer for all database operations that will implement replication.

      Previously, I just did an automated dump/import every hour to the mirrored DB, which is obviously less than optimal. Also, this eventually trashed the mirrored
      • We're using contrib/dbmirror in production, and it works fine, if your definition of fine is "ok". We run the mirroring process every five seconds, and have a few triggers and whatnot written to facilitate a hot-swap failover.

        Our transactional volume isn't high enough yet to cause us problems (less than 30 a minute), but for now, this is ok. I'm tracking the "real" pgreplication stuff, and occasionally take a desultory trip into WAL land, when I can grab a minute.

        'jfb


    • Matt Dillon [backplane.com] of FreeBSD fame (no, not the actor) has a new startup called Backplane [backplane.com]. They are creating a replicated, distributed SQL database and it's open-source. It's not PostgreSQL, but it sounds like an interesting technology.

  • Great work for their niche (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Monday April 21, 2003 @03:19PM (#5775153) Homepage

    I've been trying to learn Postgre's useage and try it on production systems. I started out with the MySQL that the developers were sarcastic about, but realized the very different applications that need databases.. Ever since, I've been delving into db3 for lower end data management (for dbase-replacement apps) and Postgresql for higher end.

    I dont think its fair to compare Postgre with MySQL. Postgres developers work so hard to point at their features, but not all web backends require transactions or even subqueries. The basic Postgresql installation is a bit of a pain to get up and running with a basic database, which keeps pushing new users to MySQL, and the feature list gets repulsive there too.. But for applications like managing the .ORG tld registry, MySQL would not be preferred.

    I like to think Postgre as a middle to large-scale database, with DB2 and Oracle taking the 'large' end of the spectrum and mysql,minisql and the sleepycat way of dealing with data, at the 'small' end. Mysql's niche happens to be at a sweet spot where developers seek ease, speed, simplicity and functionality with PHP, Perl, C and scripts.

    • yeah, mySQL is great until you want to move your code over to another system (oracle, db2, scale scale scale). then you realize that they aren't doing you any favors with their crappy built-in types like autonumber which don't translate into anything like the sql standard and lack of query flexibility (no subselects? wtf?!).

      mySQL is fine for diddly "select content from blah where id=$SOMENUM" web apps, but the syntax is seriously idiosyncratic. it's like when you program under MFC and you spend all your t

      • I agree that MySQL's version of SQL isn't very portable. But if you're going to be picky, at least pick a good example.

        CREATE TABLE foo (
        id INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
        bar CHAR(50) NOT NULL DEFAULT ''
        )

        How exactly is id "some kind of ugly data type unto itself"?

        I usually make my id's BIGINT UNSIGNED, but most people don't need 2^64 keys.

        Now, it you want bastard hacks, how about 'REPLACE INTO ...' instead of 'DELETE FROM ...; INSERT INTO ...'. All because MySQL only recently got c

    • Re:Great work for their niche (Score:4, Interesting)

      by FroMan ( 111520 ) on Monday April 21, 2003 @04:11PM (#5775547) Homepage Journal
      The basic Postgresql installation is a bit of a pain to get up and running with a basic database, which keeps pushing new users to MySQL, [snip]

      Hmmm, even one of the developers in the article seemed to think that, which I didn't get.

      For myself I found setting up postgresql to be a cinch. It was basically an initdb, if I remember right, then createdb. One of those commands needed a path for the data. Then you run pg_ctl start. Once the database was created and started you use psql to login and create users with permissions, which I'd assume has to be done on any database. Then create tables and go at it.

      That was for setting up my home setup. I think I needed to edit one file to setup security for logins on remote hosts which was pretty self explaintory.

      The hardest part was finding a jdbc driver, which didn't take too long. I found one that claimed to be better than the one that came with postgresql and droppped the .jar in the classpath and tada, instant database.

      All said and done, just setting up and getting running probably takesless than two hours. And that was starting from emerge postgres.

      Certainly its not like oracle and all enterprise like and what not, but it was sure a heck of a lot easier to setup.

      Compared to mysql? I dunno, I'd rate it about as easy. I've setup mysql before, but it still didn't seem a clean a setup to me. That might just be me though.
      • <i>It was basically an initdb, if I remember right, then createdb. One of those commands needed a path for the data. Then you run pg_ctl start. Once the database was created and started you use psql to login and create users with permissions, which I'd assume has to be done on any database. Then create tables and go at it.
        </i>

        Seems easy after youre well-versed with it, just like MySQL, so I should assume MySQL is easier.
        But most new users use mysql, and thats not just a community momentum. MySQ
        • Nope...

          This was cold introduction to postgresql. Then on the postgresql site I found a link to this: Practical PostgreSQL [commandprompt.com].

          Now, I am familar with setting up different databases, but postgresql to me was very easy. My experience with mysql has been similar, but it didn't seem as clean to me as postgresql.

          For a real nightmare setup either firebird. Not a whit of documentation for that database.
      • Yeah, I found creating a db to be as easy. The psql buffer editor/front-end does a great job of explaining everything verbosely as well.

    • Simple, so simple (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fm6 ( 162816 )

      but not all web backends require transactions or even subqueries.

      And not all DBMS apps are web backends! ;)

      But here's what puzzles me: if you don't need complicated queries (and I'm told MySql takes a serious performance hit even with something as simple as multi-field primary keys), why bother with a relational DBMS at all? Why not use a simple indexed record engine, like Berkeley DB [freshmeat.net]?

      • Funny my other window has exactly that... sleepycat.com. The close niches of larger and smaller apps... to MySQL are PostgreSQL and db3. mSQL is smaller still, I would have gone with it if I had discovered it first.

        Like most web app developers, I started with the easy and nimble MySQL, and then spread the experience to cover the rest.
      • But here's what puzzles me: if you don't need complicated queries...why bother with a relational DBMS at all? Why not use a simple indexed record engine, like Berkeley DB?

        Precisely. As someone who does database development for a living, it's my view that databases are way overused nowadays, especially with regard to websites. People are seduced by the power and flexibility of RDBMSs, but the vast majority of sites simply don't require them. If you're simply serving up the same articles over and over ag
      • I allready have a mysql db for free from my host, and it's faster to code for. I get few enough hits that performance is hardly an issue.
    • ... postgre's .... postgre ... postgre ...
      What in the heck is a "postgre"? The name of the software is "PostgreSQL", pronounced "post gre skew ell". The "SQL part" is not separable.

  • Competition (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Enrico Pulatzo ( 536675 ) on Monday April 21, 2003 @03:43PM (#5775320)
    For guys who consider Oracle and other commerical RDBMS their competition, they sure seemed to enjoy pointing out the faults of MySQL.

    In my opinion, OSS needs to be more friendly to each other. If one project lacks features, don't bash them, what's the point? Just focus on your own project, and leave other people alone, especially if they're bashing you too. So what if MySQL has a marketing department. The internet was supposed to be about exchanging ideas, not bashing other people's ideas.

    • Re:Competition (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LarryRiedel ( 141315 )

      For guys who consider Oracle and other commerical RDBMS their competition, they sure seemed to enjoy pointing out the faults of MySQL.

      I think the connotation was that technologically MySQL(*) does not compete with PostgreSQL, not that PostgreSQL is not an alternative product.

      In my opinion, OSS needs to be more friendly to each other. If one project lacks features, don't bash them, what's the point?

      If PostgreSQL is underrated and underappreciated, I think the calling attention to its relative strengt

  • .NET thing is just an API bridge (Score:3, Informative)

    by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Monday April 21, 2003 @03:51PM (#5775388) Journal
    and a "native" Windows/.NET port."

    er, not quite

    Robert: Plus we already have a .net data provider project for connecting to PostgreSQL via .Net.

    • please read the article.

      Josh: You have me at a bit of a disadvantage, since I'm used to comparing PostgreSQL to proprietary-commercial databases, who I regard as our "real" competition. I don't know that much about SAP-DB and Firebird beyond their literature on their websites.

      The only features that we lack which some other FOSS databases have are the ones you mention in questions 1 & 2. Oh, and our native Windows version is due out this summer.

      (emphasis mine)

  • MySQL subselects (Score:3, Informative)

    by Wonko42 ( 29194 ) <ryan+slashdot@[ ]ko.com ['won' in gap]> on Monday April 21, 2003 @03:54PM (#5775407) Homepage
    From the interview:

    "We had transaction support 10 years before MySQL, mainframe ports 2 years before MySQL, and support for all types of subselects for the last 2 years, which MySQL still doesn't have working."

    What's this? MySQL 4.1, released early this month, supports subselects.

    • MySQL 4.1 [mysql.com] is still in alpha. The current stable version is 4.0.12 [mysql.com].

      JP

      • "MySQL 4.1 is still in alpha. The current stable version is 4.0.12"

        What, do alpha versions not count? Perhaps I misread the rules. The quote implied that MySQL still didn't have working subselects, and that's not true. They do have working subselects.

        • Sure, you go ahead and install an alpha-quality database in your production environment. Let me know in a few days how well those subselects are holding up for you.
          • Again, I don't recall anyone saying that MySQL didn't have subselects working in a production-ready release. What was said was that they didn't have subselects working. Period. And that statement is false. I wonder how many times I have to say this before the meaning gets across.

            Coincidentally, I do happen to be using the MySQL 4.1 alpha in a production environment, and it's holding up just fine.

            • I'm still trying to get 3.23 to run without hanging. It appears that MySQL has some deadlock issues on 64 bit processors. I see it on Sparcs and they're haivng issues with Itanium2. 3.23.56 may have finally fixed this bug that I reported over 2 years ago. Not for lack of trying, but who the hell runs MySQL on a Sun cluster backed by a SAN? Er, besides me.

              Now that 4.0 is officially stable, I'm willing to give it a go. I'll make it part of the next release cycle. If it makes it through a couple months

          • Re:MySQL subselects (Score:5, Informative)

            by TheFuzzy ( 140473 ) on Monday April 21, 2003 @05:06PM (#5775911)
            Wonko,

            You're still wrong. The quote was "ALL KINDS of subselects". This would include subselects in the SELECT, FROM, WHERE and HAVING clauses, as well as correlated subselects and sub-subselects.

            MySQL supports as "sub-set" of this.

            -Josh

        • What, do alpha versions not count?

          (I'm kind of jumping around in the thread here, but...)
          Well. *no,* alpha versions don't count. You can't justify installing alpha-quality databases to your boss. You can't justify the use of an alpha-quality database to the head honchos of your company when things go horribly wrong and your data is irrevocably ruined. You can't justify using an alpha-quality database when your ecommerce site is down for extended periods of time because some obscure bug has forced yo

          • I'll try saying this one last time, and this is it.

            The quote mentioned nothing about released versions. The quote said specifically that MySQL did not have working subselect support. It did not say anything about released subselect support. Therefore, no matter what your opinions are on whether alpha versions of software are "real" or not, the MySQL team has implemented working subselects, and you'll note that that is exactly what I said in my initial comment. If you're reading anything else into it, tha

            • The quote said specifically that MySQL did not have working subselect support.
              MySQL does not have working subselect support. Steps to reproduce:
              1. Download the most recent MySQL. I do not mean the latest alpha-quality not-to-be-used-for-anything-REAL version. The most recent MySQL.
              2. Observe the lack of subselects.
              If you're reading anything else into it, that's your problem.

              The end.

  • I love using PostgreSQL. It is great, stable, easy to use, and the feature set is wonderfully large.

    It also has the same feeling that Linux did in its earlier days. PostgreSQL is unstoppable, and will one day be the only database worth using just like Linux is going to be the only Unix kernel worth using one day.

    You can see how it is growing exponentially, and there is nothing that can stop it. It feels great to get on board because you know things are only going to get better.

    As far as MySQL goes, I hav

    • Re:PostgreSQL to redefine databases (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mhesseltine ( 541806 ) on Monday April 21, 2003 @05:02PM (#5775890) Homepage Journal

      Emphasis mine:

      As far as MySQL goes, I have nothing against it.
      I grew up on Sybase and Oracle systems, so picking up PostgreSQL was easy as pie. I still haven't had enough motivation or time to pick up MySQL idiosyncracies. And I just don't see a future with MySQL or any other database like I see with PostgreSQL.

      This, I think, is the key point. For those who have database experience, PostgreSQL is a fine database product. For those with no previous database experience, the power and terse nature of PostgreSQL is a hinderance.

      I think that MySQL has done a better job of making an easy "starter" RDBMS. Is it the best thing on the planet? Probably not. If you start using MySQL and decide you're beating your head against the wall to do some particular thing, should you consider switching to PostgreSQL? Absolutely. Could the PostgreSQL people make it easier to start with? Sure.

      • Terse? Not really. I find PostgreSQL's shell to be far easier to connect to and use than mySQL's shell. Indeed, PostgreSQL has *very* verbose help, which is a major bonus during development. I can find nothing terse about it. I couldn't figure out mySQL, but PostgreSQL's documentation got me up and running in about 10 minutes.

  • What the Fuck? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Moosbert ( 33122 ) on Monday April 21, 2003 @04:38PM (#5775747)
    I'm Peter Eisentraut, I'm quoted in this article, but I never knew I was doing an "interview".

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close