5 ms·

Absolutely. I wish there are case studies about how Pgsql managed to be on the top and innovate so effectively for so long. I love this db. Its the database fo

Absolutely. I wish there are case studies about how Pgsql managed to be on the top and innovate so effectively for so long. I love this db. Its the database for the rest of us and the database for everyone else.

diggan 6y ago
> and the database for everyone else I also love postgresql but lets not get ahead of ourselves! It's great for SQL and as a traditional relational database, but there are plenty of use cases that are better served using other models (especially if you care about _time_ as a concept, then Datomic or crux is probably better suited) [although there are attempts on making bitemporality accessible in postgresql too, like https://github.com/scalegenius/pg_bitemporal https://github.com/scalegenius/pg_bitemporal]
- SOLAR_FIELDS 6y ago
  There is a professionally developed time series extension for Postgres. I haven’t tried it personally but it might be “good enough” for quite a few use cases just like Postgres’ full text search can be “good enough” without having to bring in the machine gun that is ElasticSearch/Solr.
  - diggan 6y ago
    Right, and it's probably "good enough" for most use cases. But, as always, it can't cover _everything_. I'm just making an argument against the sweeping argument that "postgresql is for everyone and everything"
  - jjjensen90 6y ago
    I brought timescale (a postgres extension that brings time series to postgres) to my current IoT job, and it has been the biggest engineering win of my career. The tooling, community, extensions, and quality of postgres + very high performance inserts + reads has reduced costs for the business dramatically versus the previous cassandra + sql server setup. We have tens of billions of events in multiple timescale hypertables, with many thousands of inserts per second running on r5.xl nodes in k8s (4 vcpu, 30gb ram) and they don't break a sweat. So yeah, it's "good enough".
    - paulie_a 6y ago
      Could you send me an email because my company is starting something similar
  - diggan 6y ago
    I realize now in after hand that we're talking about two different things. You're mentioning time series data, I talked about bitemporal databases.
mr_overalls 6y ago
Postgres is fantastic. But let's be honest about how it compares to commercial offerings. https://old.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/hqnafk/postgresql_vs_oracle_difference_in_costs_ease_of/fy0x0ic/ https://old.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/hqnafk/postgres... "Before I start, a disclaimer: I Postgres, I’ve been a PG Applicative DBA for the better part of the last decade, and as a programmer I absolutely love the PG code base. . . It should also be said that Oracle’s products are insanely expensive, and yes, their business practices have been called into question quite a few times in the past. Having said all that, and coming from many years of experience as both an Oracle DBA and PG DBA - comparing Oracle Database to Postgresql is almost like comparing a Cessna to an F-22. Only the F-22 can also transform into a Super Hercules and a helicopter. Putting aside the usual issues of bugs and related incidents (both have had their fair share), the Oracle Database is a technological marvel. I can list off of the top of my head a number of capabilities Oracle has had for almost 20 years that PG either doesn’t have or just might have in the near future: 1. On commit fast-refresh materialized views, 2. Query Rewrite to Materialized Views, 3. Direct and asynchronous I/O, 4. Parallel Query Execution, 5. Oracle RAC - Multi Master without Replication, 6. Zero downtime upgrade, 7. No autovacuums, 8. Flashback, 9. Integrated In-Memory Database, 10. Autonomous Indexing, " etc. The Reddit post is a good summary and worth a read, imho.
- petersellers 6y ago
  Sounds like the F-35 might be a better analogy then. Astronomically more expensive, extensive but questionable feature set.
- mathh 6y ago
  That is an important comment. I really like Postgres, as it is the only free RGDB allowing complex SQL (MySQL is improving), and is also reliable, but some people need to realize that the F22/Cessna comparison is not exagerated. I professionally use both Postgres and Oracle, for many years, and can confirm that Oracle is so much more advanced. In addition to the features you listed, I can think of : real-time query monitoring, active session history, inline function definition in SQL, global partitioned indexes, in-memory column store, much more advanced parallel execution capabilities, adaptive plans during query execution, bloom-filters, optimizer baselines, SQL macros, Exadata for tuning at the hardware level, Golden Gate for replication, Enterprise manager for monitoring...and a lot more actually. And of course : Optimizer hints

diggan 6y ago

> and the database for everyone else I also love postgresql but lets not get ahead of ourselves! It's great for SQL and as a traditional relational database, but there are plenty of use cases that are better served using other models (especially if you care about _time_ as a concept, then Datomic or crux is probably better suited) [although there are attempts on making bitemporality accessible in postgresql too, like https://github.com/scalegenius/pg_bitemporal https://github.com/scalegenius/pg_bitemporal]

SOLAR_FIELDS 6y ago
There is a professionally developed time series extension for Postgres. I haven’t tried it personally but it might be “good enough” for quite a few use cases just like Postgres’ full text search can be “good enough” without having to bring in the machine gun that is ElasticSearch/Solr.
- diggan 6y ago
  Right, and it's probably "good enough" for most use cases. But, as always, it can't cover _everything_. I'm just making an argument against the sweeping argument that "postgresql is for everyone and everything"
- jjjensen90 6y ago
  I brought timescale (a postgres extension that brings time series to postgres) to my current IoT job, and it has been the biggest engineering win of my career. The tooling, community, extensions, and quality of postgres + very high performance inserts + reads has reduced costs for the business dramatically versus the previous cassandra + sql server setup. We have tens of billions of events in multiple timescale hypertables, with many thousands of inserts per second running on r5.xl nodes in k8s (4 vcpu, 30gb ram) and they don't break a sweat. So yeah, it's "good enough".
  - paulie_a 6y ago
    Could you send me an email because my company is starting something similar
- diggan 6y ago
  I realize now in after hand that we're talking about two different things. You're mentioning time series data, I talked about bitemporal databases.

mr_overalls 6y ago

Postgres is fantastic. But let's be honest about how it compares to commercial offerings. https://old.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/hqnafk/postgresql_vs_oracle_difference_in_costs_ease_of/fy0x0ic/ https://old.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/hqnafk/postgres... "Before I start, a disclaimer: I Postgres, I’ve been a PG Applicative DBA for the better part of the last decade, and as a programmer I absolutely love the PG code base. . . It should also be said that Oracle’s products are insanely expensive, and yes, their business practices have been called into question quite a few times in the past. Having said all that, and coming from many years of experience as both an Oracle DBA and PG DBA - comparing Oracle Database to Postgresql is almost like comparing a Cessna to an F-22. Only the F-22 can also transform into a Super Hercules and a helicopter. Putting aside the usual issues of bugs and related incidents (both have had their fair share), the Oracle Database is a technological marvel. I can list off of the top of my head a number of capabilities Oracle has had for almost 20 years that PG either doesn’t have or just might have in the near future: 1. On commit fast-refresh materialized views, 2. Query Rewrite to Materialized Views, 3. Direct and asynchronous I/O, 4. Parallel Query Execution, 5. Oracle RAC - Multi Master without Replication, 6. Zero downtime upgrade, 7. No autovacuums, 8. Flashback, 9. Integrated In-Memory Database, 10. Autonomous Indexing, " etc. The Reddit post is a good summary and worth a read, imho.

petersellers 6y ago
Sounds like the F-35 might be a better analogy then. Astronomically more expensive, extensive but questionable feature set.
mathh 6y ago
That is an important comment. I really like Postgres, as it is the only free RGDB allowing complex SQL (MySQL is improving), and is also reliable, but some people need to realize that the F22/Cessna comparison is not exagerated. I professionally use both Postgres and Oracle, for many years, and can confirm that Oracle is so much more advanced. In addition to the features you listed, I can think of : real-time query monitoring, active session history, inline function definition in SQL, global partitioned indexes, in-memory column store, much more advanced parallel execution capabilities, adaptive plans during query execution, bloom-filters, optimizer baselines, SQL macros, Exadata for tuning at the hardware level, Golden Gate for replication, Enterprise manager for monitoring...and a lot more actually. And of course : Optimizer hints