A Curated Guide to PostgreSQL
postgresguide.com
A Curated Guide to PostgreSQL
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: A Curated Guide to PostgreSQL
#2While the idea is nice, please note that the official name is PostgreSQL and Postgres is an accepted alias. "Postgre SQL" is just plain wrong.
Re: A Curated Guide to PostgreSQL
#3While the idea is nice, please note that the official name is PostgreSQL and Postgres is an accepted alias. "Postgre SQL" is just plain wrong.
Postgre SQL is admittedly very wrong, however its also perhaps one of the biggest mistakes the project made early on (admitted by various community members).
I'll work to call out the two correct ones, and call out the confusion of the other separately.
Re: A Curated Guide to PostgreSQL
#4They ink to PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/184951030X/), which I agree is a great book if you're a sysadmin supporting PostgreSQL.
Re: A Curated Guide to PostgreSQL
#5> Its of note that Postgres does not automatically create an index when creating the primary key, it is a separate step which you must do if not using an ORM.
(http://postgresguide.com/performance/indexes.html#primary-ke...)
This directly contradicts with what the PostgreSQL documentation says.
> Adding a primary key will automatically create a unique btree index on the column or group of columns used in the primary key. (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/interactive/ddl-constrain...)
Is there a fundamental difference to the default pkey index versus an explicitly created index?
Re: A Curated Guide to PostgreSQL
#6> Its of note that Postgres does not automatically create an index when creating the primary key, it is a separate step which you must do if not using an ORM. ( http://postgresguide.com/performance/indexes.html#primary-ke... ) This directly contradicts with what the PostgreSQL documentation says. > Adding a primary key will automatically create a unique btree index on the column or group of columns used in the primar…
perhaps he meant a foreign key, not primary key.
postgresql doesn't automatically create indexes for foreign keys.
> Is there a fundamental difference to the default pkey index versus an explicitly created index?
i don't know of any in practice.
Re: A Curated Guide to PostgreSQL
#7> Its of note that Postgres does not automatically create an index when creating the primary key, it is a separate step which you must do if not using an ORM. ( http://postgresguide.com/performance/indexes.html#primary-ke... ) This directly contradicts with what the PostgreSQL documentation says. > Adding a primary key will automatically create a unique btree index on the column or group of columns used in the primar…
perhaps he meant a foreign key, not primary key. postgresql doesn't automatically create indexes for foreign keys. > Is there a fundamental difference to the default pkey index versus an explicitly created index? i don't know of any in practice.
You're correct it was intended to be foreign keys, correctly updated now.
I believe the difference would be on the constraint. A primary key is intended to be unique, where as an index does not alway carry that constraint.
Re: A Curated Guide to PostgreSQL
#8They ink to PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/184951030X/ ), which I agree is a great book if you're a sysadmin supporting PostgreSQL.
what's up w the third book link tho? some crappy book by a guy named CJ
Re: A Curated Guide to PostgreSQL
#9They ink to PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/184951030X/ ), which I agree is a great book if you're a sysadmin supporting PostgreSQL.
I have this on my desk right now - it's been extremely helpful in scaling a large database and I'd recommend it to those who don't have any experience with indexing and partitioning as well (it explains them quite clearly). It goes into lots of system settings for tuning as well.
Re: A Curated Guide to PostgreSQL
#10While the idea is nice, please note that the official name is PostgreSQL and Postgres is an accepted alias. "Postgre SQL" is just plain wrong.
It's wrong, but probably unavoidable. Attaching a spoken acronym to the end of a pronounced name is just so bizarre (has anyone else ever done that?) that people will simply skip it.
I've heard people say "post-gre", and like a new English speaker saying "We goed to the park", this overgeneralization isn't at all surprising. In computers, acronyms after names are very common, and it's typically harmless to omit them, e.g., saying "Windows XP" as "Windows" is more generic but not wrong.
I've never heard anybody ever say "post-gres-que-ell". ("Postgres" is correct, unambiguous, and sounds better. Why would I keep going and make it twice as many syllables?) They're trying to fight against the natural process of linguistic clipping with a FAQ!
I love Postgres as a database but I really wish they'd just drop that weird spelling. I don't think it's helping them at all these days.