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

Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 246 posts

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#191

Post by will_work4tears »

elob36 wrote: post #103
gdulli wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edited to add: - timestamp with time zone - More robust, fewer crashes, less corruption of data - More features (JSON data type, partial indexes, function/expression indexes, window functions, CTEs, hstore, ranges/sequences/sets, too many to list) - More disciplined (doesn't do things like auto-truncate input to get it to fit into a column) - Not owned by Oracle, it's actively developed, regular major release schedul…

To me, the MySQL query optimizer (single index in a query) was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. My group is developing all new applications in PostgreSQL and we would like to migrate our legacy apps away from MySQL.

I'm on mobile and cant quickly and easily search this but is there a good GUI for postgre similar or superior to phpmyadmin?

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#192

Post by aftabh »

will_work4tears wrote: post #191
elob36 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the MySQL query optimizer (single index in a query) was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. My group is developing all new applications in PostgreSQL and we would like to migrate our legacy apps away from MySQL.

I'm on mobile and cant quickly and easily search this but is there a good GUI for postgre similar or superior to phpmyadmin?

Try pgAdmin at http://www.pgadmin.org/

Edit: You can also check phppgadmin at http://phppgadmin.sourceforge.net/doku.php

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#193

Post by johne20 »

KingMob wrote: post #133
gtaylor wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I deal with Postgres a good bit, but will be the first to tell you that pgAdmin has got some issues. It's a very clunky, buggy, moody piece of software. I've had better luck learning how to use the psql command/shell than mess with pgAdmin, at least in certain cases. To take your example of displaying tables, psql in and type: \dt The rest is just a search away.

I have idle daydreams where Sequel Pro is finally ported to Postgres. pgAdmin is horrendous.

I have always stated postgres would become much more widely adopted if it was released on RDS and.... they finish the sequel pro support. Half way there ;)

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#194

Post by eonil »

pbreit wrote: post #54
sillysaurus2 wrote: post #12

Will anyone please explain the tactical reasons why PostgreSQL won? It's pretty obvious it has. I've basically ignored the database wars for a few years, so it's kind of interesting to see that everyone's using PostgreSQL now.

Hmmm...I was wondering why MySQL is still much more widely used.

It was used, so still just there. But not anymore if they finally learned why safety in design philosophy is important by paying data corruption or service break. (anyway some people never learn…)

Safety is annoying. Safer system usually generate more errors to prevent accidental mistakes. Extremely safe system prohibits even booting up the product if it's not been properly configured. It simply has much more annoying safety net. If you care the safety, this kind of annoying errors are good sign to you. But if you're newbie, this is just a big obstacle, which makes stiff learning cube.

Really. We still see many people who hate to use safety belt. Because it's annoying. And everybody did before benefits of safety belt were widely known and accepted.

Also, number of users says nothing about how well the product works. Usually, cheapest product takes biggest user-base. MySQL is cheapest to start due to lack of safety. Search this thread for the name "natural219". And see why he chose MySQL over PostgreSQL. I believe that's why most people started MySQL at first.

And surprisingly, there're so many people really don't care data safety. (maybe not that much surprise. we always see those people in TV…)

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#195

Post by sendob »

oceanplexian wrote: post #186
zwily wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be sure that that will come.

Probably not. Amazon has intentionally crippled external replication in MySQL for years now. It's a form of vendor lock-in and you shouldn't support it. Without replication it's impossible to migrate out of RDS without taking downtime (I've been through this and it was painful).

This seems to have changed:

http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/MySQL....

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#196

Post by jsmeaton »

jclem wrote: post #78
natural219 wrote: post #41

I hate PostgreSQL. Yes, I am a dummy application developer who doesn't understand database software. Every time I try to install PostgreSQL it fails. Every time I install MySQL it installs successfully with no problems. Actually, that's the extent of my experience with it, and I guess I'm fine dealing with a database that doesn't validate date formats strictly if I can use the damn database without hassle . I am tota…

+1 using Postgres.app (for Mac): http://postgresapp.com/ If you're on a Mac and don't want a menubar icon (I decided this recently), `brew install postgres`, and then write yourself some functions to make starting and stopping easier: https://github.com/jclem/dotfiles/blob/master/zsh/functions/... https://github.com/jclem/dotfiles/blob/master/zsh/functions/...

I've said it before numerous times, but `brew install lunchy` for a more sane service management syntax.

`lunchy start postgres`

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#197

Post by fat0wl »

kennystone wrote: post #170
fat0wl wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't calling Heroku a monolith because they're a huge company -- it's because they suck you in & then youre forever stuck in their web of services. I bet they start bleeding a lot of money now that there is an easy-to-use alternative for Postgres hosting on a well-known platform. Heroku epitomizes the idea of overcharge + vendor lock-in & people only put up with their high prices because they don't have the time…

This is not true at all. Apps on Heroku are built on open source software (Rails, Postgres, etc). You can always decide to host it all yourself without too many issues.

How is this not true? It absolutely IS vendor lock-in, just in a slightly less sinister form.

If you add 5 services & then to switch hosts it's not another git push. You have to re-configure each of the services. If you'd done this yourself all along & made machine images it would have been less convenient at the time, but probably cheaper & a good learning experience. There are many other hosting platforms that offer Linux boxes so you could move your whole App/Software layer to another of these companies without much trouble.

I'm not saying Heroku is evil or anything. Yes, they provide a good platform. But I think any web company with a significant customer base would benefit more from the cost savings & freedom of a purer platform than the conveniences of Heroku.

Plus, there are so many configuration issues with their services. I have auto-scaling setup with Adept and still I see these long request-queue buildups now & then. I get the feeling I would not have the same issues with an AWS stack where I have CPU usage monitors that are very transparent & all the networking is trivial.

I still use Heroku as an app server & don't hate it enough to up & move (though a large factor in this is I'm not the one footing the bill, the client is...) but anything I can easily get on to AWS is a no-brainer. Database is one of those things -- a couple clicks to scale up/down every year is all thats really required.

CONCLUSION (cuz I rambled too much): I think Heroku offers scaling/convenience but AWS is just so rock solid & cheap that you can probably just buy larger instances than you need (to compensate for scaling) and have much better performance at the same price. Then you just need to learn how to install your tools & take a machine image as backup. Plus there's a lot of value in learning how to work with machine images that goes way beyond hosting a web app.

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#198

Post by bjeanes »

cmelbye wrote: post #161
NatW wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question. Heroku offers an RDS plugin now only for mysql: https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/amazon_rds If/when a Heroku RDS plugin for Postgresql arrives, competing benchmarks, a cost calculator, pros and cons would be very interesting, indeed. Heroku pricing: https://addons.heroku.com/heroku-postgresql Amazon pricing: http://aws.amazon.com/rds/postgresql/

Doesn't their RDS add-on merely set DATABASE_URL to the URL that you provide when adding it? Are you sure it doesn't work with MySQL? There's no reason you'd need to wait for Heroku to add support for this, just spin up an RDS instance in us-east-1 and start using the URL Amazon gives you as your database URL.

I'm on the Heroku Add-ons team. This is correct. The RDS "add-on" is there simply for people who search for it. In reality, it's just setting DATABASE_URL, and you can do the same yourself.

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#199

Post by unclebucknasty »

elob36 wrote: post #103
gdulli wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edited to add: - timestamp with time zone - More robust, fewer crashes, less corruption of data - More features (JSON data type, partial indexes, function/expression indexes, window functions, CTEs, hstore, ranges/sequences/sets, too many to list) - More disciplined (doesn't do things like auto-truncate input to get it to fit into a column) - Not owned by Oracle, it's actively developed, regular major release schedul…

To me, the MySQL query optimizer (single index in a query) was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. My group is developing all new applications in PostgreSQL and we would like to migrate our legacy apps away from MySQL.

The single index in a query issue seems to have been addressed as of 5.0:

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/index-merge-optimizat...

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#200

Post by Sssnake »

ceejayoz wrote: post #189
Sssnake wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is absolutely ridiculous. Less than 1% of 1% of mysql users are using replication. Suggesting it is a "total non-starter" for most production uses is crazy.

> Less than 1% of 1% of mysql users are using replication. If you count all the crappy shared hosts, XAMPP local installs, and hobbyists setting up their own little VPSes, perhaps. Using a single, unreplicated database instance in production for anything serious is bizarre. Failed hardware is hardly unheard of.

>Using a single, unreplicated database instance in production for anything serious is bizarre

It is incredibly common. Go check out a thousand businesses running mysql, you'll be able to count the ones using replication on your fingers.

>Failed hardware is hardly unheard of.

You don't need to use mysql replication to deal with that. Even the crappiest low end SAN storage devices do it vastly better than mysql does, without any of the bugs and problems mysql replication has.

Post reply on HN