Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or pg if the context is clear enough.
That might be more than slightly confusing here on Hacker News.
psql? pgsql?
Why we lost Uber as a user
121–130 of 310 posts
Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't "happen to use tech", their whole business is based on tech, and not in the way a bank would use tech say, but especially on tech they create (the client, the reservations system, extra services, etc). It's like saying Google is just an ad company that "happens to use tech".
why isn't the tech that a bank would create in house be categorized similarly to the tech uber creates?
Because at least it's a really high tech bank based on that, the tech that the bank creates in house is irrelevant to the public, and they could even do business without it or even without computers, albeit much less effectively.
Whereas Uber is all about their client app, GSP tracking, etc. Without that they wouldn't be Uber but a large taxi company.
Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
#123Question about Postgres architecture: Why were secondary indexes designed to refer to ctids instead of primary keys?
There's no concept of a secondary index. An index is an index. Some are unique indexes, which force each value to be unique, some are not.
Primary Key is essentially syntactic sugar for not null and a unique index.
Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't "happen to use tech", their whole business is based on tech, and not in the way a bank would use tech say, but especially on tech they create (the client, the reservations system, extra services, etc). It's like saying Google is just an ad company that "happens to use tech".
Here we go down the etymology hole, where original intent is forgotten, and argumentative minutiae reign supreme.
Also known as the "precision" hole, and getting meanings right hole, with profound impact on what we think and do.
Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
#125pg-13sequel
Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
#126Wow, nice explanation. I was expecting a lengthy post with refuting everything uber said and explaining why pgsql was a better choice and uber was wrong. Nice and clean post showing that acknowledging a weakness isn't a terrible choice. I do wonder whether a different data structure would have mitigated the issue instead of transitioning to a different storage engine.
> Nice and clean post showing that acknowledging a weakness isn't a terrible choice. Reading between the lines: "let's ignore the obviously suboptimal choice of architecture and concentrate on the DB specific issues addressed". OTOH, what would be a nice way of doing CQRS completely within postgres?
CQRS doesn't imply event sourcing. CQRS works fine with the standard RDBMS workflow.
Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
#127Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious, what's your definition of "Tech Company"? All services provided by Uber are purely technical. Drivers and Riders are customers of Uber's technology. The full name of the company is "Uber Technologies Inc."
Acording to UK's Companies House search, Uber's nature of business (SIC) is 74990 - Non-trading company . This is quite vague but it doesn't mention technology. Interestingly, they were also called UBER TECHNOLOGIES LTD and UBERTECHNOLOGY LIMITED at some point in time, but these companies are now dissolved.
That's because Uber UK is a pure support office, at least that's what their lawywers and accountants argue.
The real company in Luxembourg.
Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
#129Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
#130The PoststgreSQL project never fails to impress me. I know that there are some use cases which are not currently covered by it versus alternatives, but I have consistently got the feeling that everybody involved in the project is supremely professional and interested in building an excellent database – and the focus is on how to work to fix these use cases, instead of pointless mudslinging. Class act.
> The PoststgreSQL project never fails to impress me. Except the name is a bit clunky and hard to write ;)
It's called Postgres because it was the second DBMS that Stonebraker started after Ingres. So it's "post Ingres", or "post gres"