4 ms·
I don't mean this as a knock on you, but your comment is a bit funny to me because it has very little to do with "modern" databases. What you're describing wou
by teraflop 8mo ago
I don't mean this as a knock on you, but your comment is a bit funny to me because it has very little to do with "modern" databases.
What you're describing would probably have been equally possible with Postgres from 20 years ago, running on an average desktop PC from 20 years ago. (Or maybe even with SQLite from 20 years ago, for that matter.)
Don't get me wrong, Postgres has gotten a lot better since 2006. But most of the improvements have been in terms of more advanced query functionality, or optimizations for those advanced queries, or administration/operational features (e.g. replication, backups, security).
- TacticalCoder 8mo ago> Don't get me wrong, Postgres has gotten a lot better since 2006. And hardware has gotten a lot better too. As TFA writes: it's 2026.
- BeetleB 8mo ago[flagged]
- kccqzy 8mo agoThe article actually points out a number of things only added after 2006, such as full-text search, JSONB, etc. Twenty years ago your full-text search option is just LIKE '%keyword%'. And it would be both slower than less effective than real full-text search. It clearly wasn’t “sub-100ms queries for virtually anything you want” like GP said.
- dimgl 8mo ago20 years ago was 2006? Oh no...
- stouset 8mo agoAnd 20 years ago people were making the exact same kinds of comments and everyone had the same reaction: yeah, MySQL has been putting numbers up like that for a decade.