Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's

boringsql.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's

#21

Post by lucianbr »

radimm wrote: post #9
gtowey wrote: post #7

I'm conflicted with this article. It does pack a lot of good information in there, and it's a useful comparison of the core difference between PostgreSQL and MySQL. But it still contains a lot of LLM-isms which are off putting and make me want to stop reading when I see them.

OP here, thanks for the feedback. Just curious - anything specific? I spent long time getting to some sort of framework for my writing and being called LLM is my constant struggle. PS: I do use LLM for polish, etc.

For me it's the rythm. It's a list of chapters, each with a list of subchapters, plenty of bulleted lists, and paragraphs of close to equal size with sentences of close to equal size. Everything is trying to be an element with an impact. Each sentence, each paragraph, each entry in a list, each list, each subchapter... feels like I'm being hit with an impact drill. This! Then this! Now this! Conclusion! But there's more!

It's not a human way to think, talk or write.

Re: PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's

#22

Post by gtowey »

radimm wrote: post #9
gtowey wrote: post #7

I'm conflicted with this article. It does pack a lot of good information in there, and it's a useful comparison of the core difference between PostgreSQL and MySQL. But it still contains a lot of LLM-isms which are off putting and make me want to stop reading when I see them.

OP here, thanks for the feedback. Just curious - anything specific? I spent long time getting to some sort of framework for my writing and being called LLM is my constant struggle. PS: I do use LLM for polish, etc.

I think jdnier nailed the phrases that most stuck out for me. I also agree that I would rather hear your own voice, even if you think it's less polished.

The problem is when reading something that has those LLM tells, I immediately wonder if any of the information has been vetted, and I wonder just how much LLM-fluff I'm going to have to wade through to get the information.

I can see you didn't just let the LLM do everything here and your own experience has guided and shaped the article. It is a good article overall, but the LLM-isms create a nagging sense of doubt about the quality which is hard to shake.

Re: PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's

#23

Post by judofyr »

radimm wrote: post #9
gtowey wrote: post #7

I'm conflicted with this article. It does pack a lot of good information in there, and it's a useful comparison of the core difference between PostgreSQL and MySQL. But it still contains a lot of LLM-isms which are off putting and make me want to stop reading when I see them.

OP here, thanks for the feedback. Just curious - anything specific? I spent long time getting to some sort of framework for my writing and being called LLM is my constant struggle. PS: I do use LLM for polish, etc.

Some examples just from the second paragraph:

- while none of this is exaggerated

- it comes down to a real design choice

- the bloat, the amplified writes, the vacuum babysitting

- every charge traces to a decision, not a defect

- the verdict that spreads from community to community always stops one question early

- watch the damage happen yourself

Here's one way of how to write it in simpler language:

> These are not user mistakes and it's easy to reproduce these issues in a few lines of SQL on the latest version of Postgres. We're going to go through each of these problematic cases one by one to understand what's happening. Next, we're going to look at how other databases are solving it. Turns out there is no silver-bullet here: Postgres just makes a different set of trade-offs than other databases.

EDIT: And you can read for yourself how the LLM rates these two paragraphs compared to each other: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a6a3120-fec4-83eb-9c8b-dbb6294aa5...

Re: PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's

#24

Post by gtowey »

padjo wrote: post #15
radimm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP here, thanks for the feedback. Just curious - anything specific? I spent long time getting to some sort of framework for my writing and being called LLM is my constant struggle. PS: I do use LLM for polish, etc.

I would say ignore them. It was well written an informative. Some people have just gone insane and see LLMs everywhere.

This is a case where "it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you" applies.

Re: PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's

#26

Post by Izkata »

lucianbr wrote: post #21
radimm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP here, thanks for the feedback. Just curious - anything specific? I spent long time getting to some sort of framework for my writing and being called LLM is my constant struggle. PS: I do use LLM for polish, etc.

For me it's the rythm. It's a list of chapters, each with a list of subchapters, plenty of bulleted lists, and paragraphs of close to equal size with sentences of close to equal size. Everything is trying to be an element with an impact. Each sentence, each paragraph, each entry in a list, each list, each subchapter... feels like I'm being hit with an impact drill. This! Then this! Now this! Conclusion! But there's m…

> Conclusion!

I will give them one positive though: They didn't actually label it "conclusion". That's always been a signal to me that someone doesn't know how to tie their thoughts together and is just blindly following the intro-body-conclusion pattern for essays from gradeschool.

Re: PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's

#27

Post by bostik »

radimm wrote: post #18
gjvc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but that approach doesn't teach "most of your audience" something new that they didn't know before

well, let's say it depends what audince. This particular topic came as part of talks I deliver on Postgres internals and my webinars. Same story. Again and again. But I do get the point. Here the goal was - there's no perfect solution. Just characteristics to be aware of. Given the anti-LLM sentiment here I need to get offline and not get affected by it.

Your post has a trove of really good data. A lot of care, skill and attention must have gone into building that kind of expertise. When you then use an LLM to produce a post about it, that comes off as lazy. It wouldn't have to be that way, but sadly very (very!) often is.[0]

Writing well is hard. Editing text to be readable is hard. Shortcutting that process is a signal to your audience that you do not appreciate their time. I use LLMs at work to generate client-facing analyses, but I never let a single version go out without doing at least some revising. LLMs love nothing more than to generate another token, which makes their output flowery and verbose. They overuse rule of three, without any of the underlying understanding why it works, let alone when (and how) to break it intentionally.

I spotted the familiar "seesaw cadence" in your post but ploughed through because the content itself was still damn good. It's a shame that you did not put the same level of care into your writing that has gone into developing the technical expertise. Getting the post flagged because of the generic anti-LLM sentiment is undesirable but expected. HN doesn't have a way to mark posts as "sloppy writing but content-wise really good".

It's the same kind of visceral reaction this crowd tends to have towards voice notes: "if you did not bother to condense your thoughts and instead dumped half an hour of rambling for me to dig through, why would I waste as long to listen to you not being able to say it clearly?" ["Podcast for none"]

0: The only exception I can point to is https://nearzero.software/p/warranty-void-if-regenerated (discussed at the time in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47431237).

Post reply on HN