11–20 of 136 posts
A tangential question: Everyone speaks about InnoDB and how performant and reliable it is... and multiple firms even use it as a KV-store (Uber/Pinterest/AWS) bypassing MySQL entirely. I have never heard much about storage engines in Postgres, why could this be so? Wikipedia has a (stub) article on InnoDB, but nothing on Postgres' storage engines... just wondering why that is.
A tangential question: Everyone speaks about InnoDB and how performant and reliable it is... and multiple firms even use it as a KV-store (Uber/Pinterest/AWS) bypassing MySQL entirely. I have never heard much about storage engines in Postgres, why could this be so? Wikipedia has a (stub) article on InnoDB, but nothing on Postgres' storage engines... just wondering why that is.
A tangential question: Everyone speaks about InnoDB and how performant and reliable it is... and multiple firms even use it as a KV-store (Uber/Pinterest/AWS) bypassing MySQL entirely. I have never heard much about storage engines in Postgres, why could this be so? Wikipedia has a (stub) article on InnoDB, but nothing on Postgres' storage engines... just wondering why that is.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/postgres-fdw.html
For example, Citus Data provides a column store for Postgres via the fdw api.
A tangential question: Everyone speaks about InnoDB and how performant and reliable it is... and multiple firms even use it as a KV-store (Uber/Pinterest/AWS) bypassing MySQL entirely. I have never heard much about storage engines in Postgres, why could this be so? Wikipedia has a (stub) article on InnoDB, but nothing on Postgres' storage engines... just wondering why that is.
A tangential question: Everyone speaks about InnoDB and how performant and reliable it is... and multiple firms even use it as a KV-store (Uber/Pinterest/AWS) bypassing MySQL entirely. I have never heard much about storage engines in Postgres, why could this be so? Wikipedia has a (stub) article on InnoDB, but nothing on Postgres' storage engines... just wondering why that is.
PostgreSQL, for better or worse, doesn't have pluggable storage engines. There's some discussion on their dev mailing list about the possibility of adding that capability in PG10, though: http://postgresql.nabble.com/Pluggable-storage-td5916322.htm... Some earlier (2013) discussion on the same topic: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/2013UnconfPluggableStorage
A tangential question: Everyone speaks about InnoDB and how performant and reliable it is... and multiple firms even use it as a KV-store (Uber/Pinterest/AWS) bypassing MySQL entirely. I have never heard much about storage engines in Postgres, why could this be so? Wikipedia has a (stub) article on InnoDB, but nothing on Postgres' storage engines... just wondering why that is.
We (Pinterest, I wrote most of the MySQL automation) make heavy use of MySQL replication which is vastly simpler to manage than PG. All queries still flow through SQL and unlike PG, we can force whatever execution plan we need. We do lots of PK lookups, and InnoDB is really good at that. In InnoDB all the data is stored in the PK while in PG it is just a pointer.
Are there huge differences in performance, features or search quality? At which scale does using Postgres for full text search still make sense?
A tangential question: Everyone speaks about InnoDB and how performant and reliable it is... and multiple firms even use it as a KV-store (Uber/Pinterest/AWS) bypassing MySQL entirely. I have never heard much about storage engines in Postgres, why could this be so? Wikipedia has a (stub) article on InnoDB, but nothing on Postgres' storage engines... just wondering why that is.
A tangential question: Everyone speaks about InnoDB and how performant and reliable it is... and multiple firms even use it as a KV-store (Uber/Pinterest/AWS) bypassing MySQL entirely. I have never heard much about storage engines in Postgres, why could this be so? Wikipedia has a (stub) article on InnoDB, but nothing on Postgres' storage engines... just wondering why that is.
Here is as well some documentation on the matter: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/HeapamRefactoring
Having "CREATE ACCESS METHOD [...] ON STORAGE|TABLE" to create a custom access method, or storage engine, and extending CREATE TABLE to be able to pass a storage method with the table definition could become a quite powerful combination. The main challenge is to come up with an interface solid enough to be able to handle problems related to MVCC, like VACUUM cleanup.
A tangential question: Everyone speaks about InnoDB and how performant and reliable it is... and multiple firms even use it as a KV-store (Uber/Pinterest/AWS) bypassing MySQL entirely. I have never heard much about storage engines in Postgres, why could this be so? Wikipedia has a (stub) article on InnoDB, but nothing on Postgres' storage engines... just wondering why that is.
The PG storage engine is not particularly awesome. It is basically COW (with exceptions) and compaction (called vacuum) has been quite painful for a long time. Every release it is supposedly fixed, but people keep complaining. This not to say PG sucks, their optimizer knows far more about their data than InnoDB and PG can perform far more types of execution plans. We (Pinterest, I wrote most of the MySQL automation)…
This is just a consequence of the PK being a clustered index in InnoDB which has both pros and cons. One of the big cons is that all of the columns of the PK are implicitly added to every secondary index as the row identifier. That isn't a big problem if your PK is a single column int, but if it's multiple columns, that often results in unnecessary bloat in your secondary indexes. Ideally (as in, dare I say, MS SQL Server), you'd have the option of a clustered or non-clustered PK for your table so you could choose the optimal index structure for your workload on a per-table basis.