PostgreSQL 8.2 Released 147
An anonymous reader writes to let us know that PostgreSQL 8.2 has been released (bits, release notes). 8.2 is positioned as a performance release. PostgreSQL it is still missing the SQL:2003 Window Functions that are critical in business reporting, so Oracle and DB2 will still win out for OLAP/data warehouse applications.
Re:bitmap? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I think you're full of it. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it's missing description on how exactly they set up MySQL. MyISAM? innodb? So take it with a grain of salt.
Re:Performance? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Performance? (Score:2, Informative)
Replication? (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the other options I found were abandonware, undocumented, didn't work with PostgreSQL 8.x, etc. I looked at commercial solutions, but they were similarly a mess. Specifically, here is my survey:
* pgpool -- Max 2 servers, and they're not really in sync---commands like now() or rand() will be executed independently on the mirrored machines, causing them to have different data.
* Slony I -- DB schema changes not replicated, nor are "large objects"
* PGCluster -- Synchronous multi-master. We don't want synchronous, and don't need multi-master. Documentation patchy, didn't appear to be currently maintained.
* CommandPrompt "Mammoth" -- Documentation "in the works". PostgreSQL 8.0.7. Tables can't use "inheritance". Schema changes not replicated (at least not table creation, not sure about the rest). Only 1 db replicated, not all dbs. Tables must have primary keys. Have to list tables in config file.
* Bizgres/GreenPlum -- Buzzword-compliant website, but website was broken when I looked for details. The "Community" is inactive---forum is barely used, questions are unanswered.
* PostgrSQL Replicator -- Poorly documented. Only mentions up to 7.x. "News" is from 2001.
I'm not ragging on PostgreSQL: I'd really like to be able to migrate to it. I just fear that when replication is done in a third-party fashion, it loses the tight integration with the dbms necessary to make it work truly seamlessly, and that it isn't maintained as well as the core product.
Perhaps this comment is off-topic, since the post is about a new release of PostgreSQL, not asking for questions about its individual features. But this is the one feature I look for in each new release, and the fact that I couldn't find any good solution makes me wonder if it's because I missed the one great one that people actually use.
Re:Gotta love it... (Score:2, Informative)
Postgres rocks (or keeps track of them in this case). It works, and it was done 100% free of window functions.
Re:Replication? (Score:5, Informative)
PITR recovery and log replication may work in 8.2; but I agree with the posters who complain that there is no easy replication for postgresql.
Re:Watch out, MySQL. (Score:3, Informative)
Having used both, I can tell you phppgadmin is a bit more polished than phpmyadmin. Neither are particularly wonderful ways to interact with a database, but if you're stuck on a no-console web host, I'd much prefer to have the posgres/phppgadmin combo.
Re:Watch out, MySQL. (Score:4, Informative)
webmin anyone? [webmin.com] or
this if you want a non-web version [pgadmin.org]
Re:Replication? (Score:5, Informative)
You're a DBA and you don't know what large objects are?
Oh, right. Not really a DBA
Let's see:
Others listed are older and not relevant.
Funny, I fear a database that has only rudimentary data integrity checks. Here's the real question for you: Why do you need replication? It doesn't magically work the way you think it does, even in MySQL [mysql.com] (see under "Problems Not Solved"). Quote: "MySQL's replication isn't the ideal vehicle for transmitting real-time or nearly real-time data". Every replicated database can lose synchronization and no one can honestly guarantee otherwise. Even Oracle.
Slony-I will pretty much give you what you already have. My guess is that you don't really need replication at all; hot standby servers will suffice in case of failure. The rest comes down to query tuning or faster hardware (or a database that does faster nontrivial queries, like PostgreSQL). (And don't complain about costs if you're already buying servers for replication. If you have real data that's making you money here, hardware is cheap; if you don't, you probably don't really need any of this to begin with.) If you need true realtime synchronization, replication is not an option.
Finally, while I'm not a MySQL fan, since you don't seem to give any real reason for wanting to migrate, why bother? You already have a working system and hardware investment. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it comes time to upgrade down the line, and the features justify the move, then maybe consider it.
In summary: meh.
Re:Replication? (Score:5, Informative)
That's a feature, not a bug. That means you can have DB1 be master for Table1 and slave (subscriber) for Table2, and DB2 be master for Table2 and slave (subscriber) for Table1. You can also chain subscriptions to make a hierarchy, which allows for very good scalability.
Oh, and if you want to replicate schema changes, use the Slony-I "execute script" command. It will lock down all the tables as necessary and synchronize the changes so that nothing gets out of order. Slony-I keeps everything transactionally consistent.
Slony also doesn't replicate "large objects"
Ignore that. A large object is basically an interface to a file over the PostgreSQL protocol. You don't need them to efficiently store large amounts of data. Put a GB into a text type if you want (or bytea type for binary data).
I encourage you to take a closer look at Slony-I. It's what the
Re:Watch out, MySQL. (Score:1, Informative)
Way to go PostgreSQL (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, jBilling http://www.jbilling.com/ [jbilling.com] now runs in many databases but still PostgreSQL is holding its ground against Oracle and other heavyweights. Those extra features that Oracle says you need and charges you an arm and a leg, are really not needed in most applications.
Cheers,
Paul C.
Sr Developer
http://www.jbilling.com/ [jbilling.com] - The Open Source Enterprise Billing System
Reporting (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently the submitter has not been visited by any of the plethora of reporting tools vendors who will tell you (without you asking) how crappy the built-in stuff is and how great their stuff is.
Also, given the text, isn't Oracle and DB2 also missing those critical SQL:2003 Window Functions?
Re:I think you're full of it. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Replication? (Score:3, Informative)
Table inheritance is like a reverse VIEW, and was defined in SQL:1999. Given table A and table B, let's say table B inherits from table A. Table B will then have all the fields from table A plus it's own. PostgreSQL also supports multiple inheritance. It's standard SQL, but it's very weird, IMO. It has some pretty specific uses, like being able to essentially have indexed VIEWs and such, or making a permanent JOINed table.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/dd
As far as schema changes, the argument goes like this: replication is only necessary on productions systems. Schema on production systems should be static. If you're changing your schema, you probably did something wrong.
Re:--more-- (Score:3, Informative)
The same as everybody else who stores text in a relational database. Use external indexing, such as Lucene, which actually has some features you'd want for non-trivial full text indexing and searching, such as stemming.
Re:They moved to FreeBSD from Linux. (Score:1, Informative)