3 ms·
Hmm, wonder why they didn't try FoundationDB. Interesting that they had problems with vacuuming. I always thought that part of Postgres was the worst part. I v
by mannyv 3y ago
Hmm, wonder why they didn't try FoundationDB.
Interesting that they had problems with vacuuming. I always thought that part of Postgres was the worst part. I vaguely remember that you needed twice the space to vacuum successfully, which hopefully has changed in later versions.
An article about why vacuum is needed in pg (as compared to mysql/innodb).
http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2011/02/mysql-vs-postgresql-part-2-vacuum-vs.html http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2011/02/mysql-vs-postgresql-part-2...
- eatonphil 3y agoThe article mentions they're trying very hard to stick with Postgres. FoundationDB is great but doesn't even have a SQL access layer, let alone a Postgres SQL access layer. :)
- harikb 3y agoDo you know of any performant relational-db layer on top of FoundationDB? It seems there usecase would need at least simple join, which raw FoundationDB lacks.
- yashap 3y agoThey want pretty full SQL support, so FoundationDB would be out. I’d think “buy” options for them would be more like Citus, Yugabyte, Cockroach or Spanner.