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

PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

postgresql.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 162 posts

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#151

Post by h1d »

Keyframe wrote: post #41
eropple wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quite like Postgres and use it preferentially, but your numbers are off. SQL Server Enterprise costs more like $7500/core; that $15K pack, as far as I am aware, comes with two core licenses. SQL Server Standard 2016 costs $931 for a license if you use CALs ($209 a pop), or $3700/core. Also bear in mind that almost nobody pays list price for any of this.

$7500 per core, but only $15,000 for two cores sounds like a sweet deal though.

For someone who grew up with decent open source solutions in the software stack, that deal simply sounds insane and it should be the majority's thinking soon enough.

And if those paidwares don't solve your problems exclusively, I doubt people would choose to use it when they can solve their problems with the tools they grew up with.

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#152

Post by h1d »

GordonS wrote: post #86
AlphaSite wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine a VM is a good solution to that.

Windows also let's you set CPU affinity per process - could that be used as a simple workaround?

I laugh when people have to deal with these problems when others are solving real problems using free tools.

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#153

Post by h1d »

wongarsu wrote: post #73
mr_overalls wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use MS-SQL for my day job, and Postgres for personal projects. Pros of MS-SQL are mainly 1) easy integration with the universe of Microsoft dev tools, frameworks, and infrastructure, and 2) great database tooling in itself: * SSMS - SQL Server Management Studio * The MS BI stack: SSRS (reporting), SSAS (analysis), SSIS (integration)

The tooling is indeed sweet, and in a big company I could see it paying for itself in saved dev time.

Sounds like a victim of vendor lock in. I assume you will bleed hard to get out of it.

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#154

Post by h1d »

atombender wrote: post #81
eberkund wrote: post #44

I maintain a couple of MySQL based applications. I don't really use any features outside of "standard SQL" is there a reason to switch over to Pg? I haven't used Pg before and usually default to MySQL.

One big argument: Transactional DDL. For example: begin; alter table foos add answer int not null default 42; alter table foos drop column plumbus; update foos set name = upper(name); create table bars (t serial); drop table dingbats; rollback; // Or, of course, commit What's the benefit? Atomic migrations. You can create, alter, drop tables, update data, etc. in a single transaction, and it will either commit comple…

I don't think one would migrate if Pg's strength is on 'alter table' which isn't what people do on a daily basis

Might want to mention the downside of using MySQL as well. (Am also interested to know as a daily MySQL user.)

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#155

Post by h1d »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #144
zerocrates wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "star from one table, specific columns from another" issue... if I'm understanding correctly I'm pretty sure MySQL allows just that. Division by zero errors and non-"magical" GROUP BY have been the default mode of operation for a _little_ longer, since the 5.7 series.

Hmm, you're right. Must've been user error on that one ;) I stand by the rest of my points, however.

Still mostly the same for MySQL 8?

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#156

Post by mr_overalls »

h1d wrote: post #153
wongarsu wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tooling is indeed sweet, and in a big company I could see it paying for itself in saved dev time.

Sounds like a victim of vendor lock in. I assume you will bleed hard to get out of it.

How is this any different from the sunk cost that's a consequence of going with _any_ particular technology stack?

I mean, if you chose Python/Postgres/etc., presumably, you'd have to rewrite/retool everything if you went to a different stack.

If you're talking about open vs closed source: the C# compiler (Roslyn) is completely free and open source, as are a number of .NET components: CoreFX - Core foundational libraries, CoreCLR - runtime.

As well as PowerShell, VS Code, Typescript, ASP.NET Core, MVC, Blazor, F#, Z3 Theorem Prover, etc.

And that's from just the first few pages of their Open Source page: https://opensource.microsoft.com/

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#157

Post by adamzochowski »

eropple wrote: post #143
grouseway wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no more server CPUs with less than 6 cores though. We could happily manage with just 2 dedicated to SQL server, but you have to license all the cores you have. So 3K worth of low end hardware ends up costing you several multiples of that in licensing.

What features in SQL Server Enterprise do you need? More than 24 cores? More than 128GB of RAM? I ask because SQL Server Standard is significantly cheaper when you're using CALs instead of unlimited connections. Ten servers fronting a SQL Server Standard install is $3K, which at a large enterprise is often within a director-level's discretionary equipment budget.

User CAL is only cheap if you only deal with small amount of users (internal app). Please note a user is not SQL User account, but represents actual individual person. If you have a webserver (with one db user) but a thousand of visitors, then Microsoft treats it as thousand user CALs . Following MS doc explains this in detail http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/F/8/6F84A9FE-1E5C-4... , look for keyword 'multiplexing'

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#158

Post by oarabbus_ »

h1d wrote: post #155
oarabbus_ wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, you're right. Must've been user error on that one ;) I stand by the rest of my points, however.

Still mostly the same for MySQL 8?

MySQL 8.0 has Window Functions and CTEs. Of the entire list of things I mentioned, window functions and CTE's comprise 80% of the "weight" of my issues of that list.

In other words, while I (or another analyst) would likely still prefer Postgres over MySQL of any version, I wouldn't really have too much to complain about if I was using v8.

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#159

Post by eropple »

adamzochowski wrote: post #157
eropple wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What features in SQL Server Enterprise do you need? More than 24 cores? More than 128GB of RAM? I ask because SQL Server Standard is significantly cheaper when you're using CALs instead of unlimited connections. Ten servers fronting a SQL Server Standard install is $3K, which at a large enterprise is often within a director-level's discretionary equipment budget.

User CAL is only cheap if you only deal with small amount of users (internal app). Please note a user is not SQL User account, but represents actual individual person. If you have a webserver (with one db user) but a thousand of visitors, then Microsoft treats it as thousand user CALs . Following MS doc explains this in detail http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/F/8/6F84A9FE-1E5C-4... , look for keyword 'multipl…

Huh, TIL. I literally had a Microsoft sales rep tell me otherwise. Anything to get the sale, I guess.

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#160

Post by in9 »

barrkel wrote: post #139
barrkel wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've just upgraded my hobby app from 9.6 to 11 and some of my old queries are now timing out :-| I'll update this thread when I find out why.

analyze fixed pretty much everything :)

what do you mean? You looked at the analyse report and changed the query to avoid some unnecessary computation?
Post reply on HN