6 ms·

If anyone even remotely involved with the maintenance and development of pg reads this thread - Thank you! - for all your efforts in building and improving a fi

by alceta 9y ago

If anyone even remotely involved with the maintenance and development of pg reads this thread - Thank you! - for all your efforts in building and improving a first class product that keeps me amazed at the strides it takes with each major. release.

kentt 9y ago
Seconded. Postgres is such a high quality project in so many ways. I'm rarely left wanting when using it, and very often pleasantly surprised.
jorgeleo 9y ago
Third!
jackmott 9y ago
agreed. after years of having used Oracle and SQL Server at work, to find I could have a working database in about 10 seconds with sudo apt-get install postgresql was amazing to me!
- manigandham 9y ago
  SQL Server on Linux in a container is just as easy now: docker run -e 'ACCEPT_EULA=Y' -e 'SA_PASSWORD=password' -p 1433:1433 -d microsoft/mssql-server-linux EDIT: Or with apt-get too: sudo apt-get install -y mssql-server https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-setup#platforms https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-...
  - grzm 9y ago
    Let's not let this devolve into a db war. This submission is about PostgreSQL 10. Your parent expresses how easy it is for them to get PostgreSQL up and running in their environment—no comparison saying that others are bad (edit: though they did have some difficulty in the past). It's great that you've got a good solution that works for you! And I'm sure there are other ways of doing this as well for other dbs. If you have experience with PostgreSQL and SQL Server features that you'd like to compare that are relevant to these PostgreSQL release notes, please do share them constructively. I'm sure there are people that would be interested in hearing about them.
    - manigandham 9y ago
      Where's the db war? The comment was implying that MSSQL wasnt as easy to install and I offered advice for the latest version. Neither database is really production ready with a 1 line install but it seems you're finding conflict that doesnt exist.
    - jackmott 9y ago
      parent here. yeah SQL Server is pretty nice to work with as well!
  - lgas 9y ago
    That's not as easy in at least two ways: having to use docker and know that command line.
    - manigandham 9y ago
      That command line is basic docker usage. Containers are far easier and cleaner than apt/yum installations at this point but you can just do this too: sudo apt-get install mssql-server
  - zackelan 9y ago
    That strikes me as being comparable only at the most superficial level. I started that SQL Server container and it's using 825mb of RAM (according to systemd-cgtop), just sitting there idle with no data in it. I started a Postgres 9.6 container also using their official Docker container and it's sitting idle at 58mb of RAM. Insult to injury, if you're using Docker in a VM (as you must on a Mac) the instructions on that Docker Hub page say you need a minimum of 3.25GB RAM dedicated to the VM. That's quite a heavy lift if all you want is a database instance for local development. And then sure, you could run SQL Server on Linux for your production instances, but you're well off the beaten path. You're going to have to roll your own infrastructure rather than relying on AWS RDS, Google Cloud SQL, Heroku, etc etc. And the moment you have a performance problem the first advice you'll hear seems likely to be "try it on Windows and see if it reproduces there".
    - mst 9y ago
      That 58Mb RAM number isn't necessarily a good thing - something postgres has regularly fought against adoption-wise is that the defaults exist to be sane on a shared machine, not provide maximum throughput on a dedicated database server. While I appreciate this choice personally, I also suspect a good container default would idle higher. (I'm a huge pg fan if that isn't clear - just ...)
    - manigandham 9y ago
      SQL Server does use it's own mini-OS layer and this what lets it virtualize and run on Linux too, so there are higher system requirements. It seems you're just guessing on that last part though - SQL Server has been in production for decades and already has lots of tooling and there are even new CLIs available for the Linux environment. Production SQL Server comes with support from MS, you're definitely not on your own nor will they just tell you to run it on Windows, this is simply not how enterprise support works and they would have a hard time staying in business with answers like that. We can discuss support issues but it's best to leave the assumptions and hyperbole out of it.
      - _jal 9y ago
        "Assumptions and hyperbole"? That MSSQL isn't available as a service like RDS? That tooling and integration that's been building up for decades around PG (or Mysql/Maria for that matter) doesn't exist? These are just facts. I'm sure you're right that MS would be happy to sell support. What I don't see is a reason to care, unless I run in to a Windows app that can't use another DB that I suddenly need to run under Linux.
  - flukus 9y ago
    You left out the licensing step, working out what license you need is it's own time sink.
  - TCM 9y ago
    I had issues with the docker container on Debian 9. I think the container is only tested on Ubuntu.
  - lambda 9y ago
    Those aren't all of the instructions for apt-get. The full instructions are on https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/quickstart-install-connect-ubuntu https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/quickstart-instal... and appear to consist of: curl https://packages.microsoft.com/keys/microsoft.asc | sudo apt-key add - sudo add-apt-repository "$(curl https://packages.microsoft.com/config/ubuntu/16.04/prod.list)" sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get install -y mssql-server sudo /opt/mssql/bin/mssql-conf setup sudo apt-get install -y mssql-tools unixodbc-dev echo 'export PATH="$PATH:/opt/mssql-tools/bin"' >> ~/.bash_profile echo 'export PATH="$PATH:/opt/mssql-tools/bin"' >> ~/.bashrc source ~/.bashrc And at that point, you have a limited period trial license of a release candidate version installed, and so once you want to use it for production, you have to start dealing with license management issues, which could limit your ability to easily set up dev envs, test envs, hot spares, etc. All of that is on top of the issues of how heavyweight it is due to containing a platform abstraction layer that consists of a very large amount of Windows running in user mode, as discussed by others in this thread.
    - manigandham 9y ago
      Yes, you have to add the repo, the same as if you wanted the latest postgres bits on any distro. You also have to edit configs for both and you can also choose to install extra tools for both. I'm surprised at how many people seem to have taken issue with a simple comment. Postgres is easy to install... and now so is MSSQL compared to the complex slow GUI installer they had before. Maybe it'll help the original commenter, maybe not. Let's just leave it at that.
      - striking 9y ago
        Debian and derivatives have it in repos by default. Please don't make claims like those.
        manigandham 9y ago
        That's more to do with the OS than the DB, and many repo entries are outdated. MSSQL hasnt existed on Linux before, but either way: > I'm surprised at how many people seem to have taken issue with a simple comment.
- forinti 9y ago
  In 2015 we upgraded from Oracle 10 to 11. It took two weeks. I took the chance to upgrade our PostgreSQL instance. It took less than an hour. It was a smaller database, but the difference in complexity was still impressive.
irrational 9y ago
Truly. We've recently moved from Oracle (after using it for 15 years) to Postgresql. It's like a breath of fresh air. The documentation for Postgres is unbelievably superior to Oracle. So far its performance is equal to or better than Oracle. We had to go through and rewrite thousands of queries, but the sql syntax of Postgres was always simpler and more logical than the equivalent in Oracle (I think Oracle has too much baggage from being around too long). All in all I'm so impressed by Postgres. I'm sure there are features in Oracle that Postgres doesn't have that keep people on Oracle, but I would imagine that the vast majority of Oracle installs could be moved to Postgres.
- patates 9y ago
  Do you plan to write more about the migration, like a blog post? That would be very interesting to read.
  - unixhero 9y ago
    This needs to become a thing. Where people produce writeups on Oracle To Postgres, and how much better it is; under something like #RunsMuchBetterWithPostgres ... It is strange that there aren't more writeups on Postgresql migrations. Yandex had a good one. Posted here a long while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12489055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12489055
    - sharninder 9y ago
      Another one here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyc5ohv0RLY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyc5ohv0RLY
    - KingMob 9y ago
      > It is strange that there aren't more writeups on Postgresql migrations. It's probably because switching databases is very painful and rare.
      - unixhero 9y ago
tikhon 9y ago
And they didn't even ICO

by alceta 9y ago

kentt 9y ago

Seconded. Postgres is such a high quality project in so many ways. I'm rarely left wanting when using it, and very often pleasantly surprised.

jorgeleo 9y ago

Third!

jackmott 9y ago

agreed. after years of having used Oracle and SQL Server at work, to find I could have a working database in about 10 seconds with sudo apt-get install postgresql was amazing to me!

manigandham 9y ago
SQL Server on Linux in a container is just as easy now: docker run -e 'ACCEPT_EULA=Y' -e 'SA_PASSWORD=password' -p 1433:1433 -d microsoft/mssql-server-linux EDIT: Or with apt-get too: sudo apt-get install -y mssql-server https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-setup#platforms https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-...
- grzm 9y ago
  Let's not let this devolve into a db war. This submission is about PostgreSQL 10. Your parent expresses how easy it is for them to get PostgreSQL up and running in their environment—no comparison saying that others are bad (edit: though they did have some difficulty in the past). It's great that you've got a good solution that works for you! And I'm sure there are other ways of doing this as well for other dbs. If you have experience with PostgreSQL and SQL Server features that you'd like to compare that are relevant to these PostgreSQL release notes, please do share them constructively. I'm sure there are people that would be interested in hearing about them.
  - manigandham 9y ago
    Where's the db war? The comment was implying that MSSQL wasnt as easy to install and I offered advice for the latest version. Neither database is really production ready with a 1 line install but it seems you're finding conflict that doesnt exist.
  - jackmott 9y ago
    parent here. yeah SQL Server is pretty nice to work with as well!
- lgas 9y ago
  That's not as easy in at least two ways: having to use docker and know that command line.
  - manigandham 9y ago
    That command line is basic docker usage. Containers are far easier and cleaner than apt/yum installations at this point but you can just do this too: sudo apt-get install mssql-server
- zackelan 9y ago
  That strikes me as being comparable only at the most superficial level. I started that SQL Server container and it's using 825mb of RAM (according to systemd-cgtop), just sitting there idle with no data in it. I started a Postgres 9.6 container also using their official Docker container and it's sitting idle at 58mb of RAM. Insult to injury, if you're using Docker in a VM (as you must on a Mac) the instructions on that Docker Hub page say you need a minimum of 3.25GB RAM dedicated to the VM. That's quite a heavy lift if all you want is a database instance for local development. And then sure, you could run SQL Server on Linux for your production instances, but you're well off the beaten path. You're going to have to roll your own infrastructure rather than relying on AWS RDS, Google Cloud SQL, Heroku, etc etc. And the moment you have a performance problem the first advice you'll hear seems likely to be "try it on Windows and see if it reproduces there".
  - mst 9y ago
    That 58Mb RAM number isn't necessarily a good thing - something postgres has regularly fought against adoption-wise is that the defaults exist to be sane on a shared machine, not provide maximum throughput on a dedicated database server. While I appreciate this choice personally, I also suspect a good container default would idle higher. (I'm a huge pg fan if that isn't clear - just ...)
  - manigandham 9y ago
    SQL Server does use it's own mini-OS layer and this what lets it virtualize and run on Linux too, so there are higher system requirements. It seems you're just guessing on that last part though - SQL Server has been in production for decades and already has lots of tooling and there are even new CLIs available for the Linux environment. Production SQL Server comes with support from MS, you're definitely not on your own nor will they just tell you to run it on Windows, this is simply not how enterprise support works and they would have a hard time staying in business with answers like that. We can discuss support issues but it's best to leave the assumptions and hyperbole out of it.
    - _jal 9y ago
      "Assumptions and hyperbole"? That MSSQL isn't available as a service like RDS? That tooling and integration that's been building up for decades around PG (or Mysql/Maria for that matter) doesn't exist? These are just facts. I'm sure you're right that MS would be happy to sell support. What I don't see is a reason to care, unless I run in to a Windows app that can't use another DB that I suddenly need to run under Linux.
- flukus 9y ago
  You left out the licensing step, working out what license you need is it's own time sink.
- TCM 9y ago
  I had issues with the docker container on Debian 9. I think the container is only tested on Ubuntu.
- lambda 9y ago
  Those aren't all of the instructions for apt-get. The full instructions are on https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/quickstart-install-connect-ubuntu https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/quickstart-instal... and appear to consist of: curl https://packages.microsoft.com/keys/microsoft.asc | sudo apt-key add - sudo add-apt-repository "$(curl https://packages.microsoft.com/config/ubuntu/16.04/prod.list)" sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get install -y mssql-server sudo /opt/mssql/bin/mssql-conf setup sudo apt-get install -y mssql-tools unixodbc-dev echo 'export PATH="$PATH:/opt/mssql-tools/bin"' >> ~/.bash_profile echo 'export PATH="$PATH:/opt/mssql-tools/bin"' >> ~/.bashrc source ~/.bashrc And at that point, you have a limited period trial license of a release candidate version installed, and so once you want to use it for production, you have to start dealing with license management issues, which could limit your ability to easily set up dev envs, test envs, hot spares, etc. All of that is on top of the issues of how heavyweight it is due to containing a platform abstraction layer that consists of a very large amount of Windows running in user mode, as discussed by others in this thread.
  - manigandham 9y ago
    Yes, you have to add the repo, the same as if you wanted the latest postgres bits on any distro. You also have to edit configs for both and you can also choose to install extra tools for both. I'm surprised at how many people seem to have taken issue with a simple comment. Postgres is easy to install... and now so is MSSQL compared to the complex slow GUI installer they had before. Maybe it'll help the original commenter, maybe not. Let's just leave it at that.
    - striking 9y ago
      Debian and derivatives have it in repos by default. Please don't make claims like those.
      - manigandham 9y ago
        That's more to do with the OS than the DB, and many repo entries are outdated. MSSQL hasnt existed on Linux before, but either way: > I'm surprised at how many people seem to have taken issue with a simple comment.
forinti 9y ago
In 2015 we upgraded from Oracle 10 to 11. It took two weeks. I took the chance to upgrade our PostgreSQL instance. It took less than an hour. It was a smaller database, but the difference in complexity was still impressive.

irrational 9y ago

Truly. We've recently moved from Oracle (after using it for 15 years) to Postgresql. It's like a breath of fresh air. The documentation for Postgres is unbelievably superior to Oracle. So far its performance is equal to or better than Oracle. We had to go through and rewrite thousands of queries, but the sql syntax of Postgres was always simpler and more logical than the equivalent in Oracle (I think Oracle has too much baggage from being around too long). All in all I'm so impressed by Postgres. I'm sure there are features in Oracle that Postgres doesn't have that keep people on Oracle, but I would imagine that the vast majority of Oracle installs could be moved to Postgres.

patates 9y ago
Do you plan to write more about the migration, like a blog post? That would be very interesting to read.
- unixhero 9y ago
  This needs to become a thing. Where people produce writeups on Oracle To Postgres, and how much better it is; under something like #RunsMuchBetterWithPostgres ... It is strange that there aren't more writeups on Postgresql migrations. Yandex had a good one. Posted here a long while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12489055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12489055
  - sharninder 9y ago
    Another one here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyc5ohv0RLY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyc5ohv0RLY
  - KingMob 9y ago
    > It is strange that there aren't more writeups on Postgresql migrations. It's probably because switching databases is very painful and rare.
    - unixhero 9y ago

tikhon 9y ago

And they didn't even ICO