Earlier quoted context omitted.
The “new” name never really stick…
Was MariaDB ever called MariaSQL? When?
I referred to MySQL vs MariaDB
When did Postgres become cool?
171–180 of 182 posts
Re: When did Postgres become cool?
#1722003-2005, it started to show stability and solve replication issues that held it back.
Re: When did Postgres become cool?
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
The “new” name never really stick…
Was MariaDB ever called MariaSQL? When?
It was my mistake, I misremembered MariaDB, but can't edit my comment now. In my defense, I've barely thought of it since 2009, when it was forked.
On the other hand, I've worked with MySQL a few times in the same period, mostly because Oracle, whatever its failings, has kept MySQL alive. Not thriving, but alive. I'm so glad they didn't buy PostgreSQL.
Re: When did Postgres become cool?
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was MariaDB ever called MariaSQL? When?
It was my mistake, I misremembered MariaDB, but can't edit my comment now. In my defense, I've barely thought of it since 2009, when it was forked. On the other hand, I've worked with MySQL a few times in the same period, mostly because Oracle, whatever its failings, has kept MySQL alive. Not thriving, but alive. I'm so glad they didn't buy PostgreSQL.
It is an easy mistake to make :) - it seems like ages ago when MySQL was sort of state of the art.
I was there too when Oracle took over and everbody knew what was going to happen.
Happy also that pgsql was not a victim and is still alive!
Re: When did Postgres become cool?
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
You get JSON types with postgres. If you aren't sharing data between tables then json is fine
You get JSONB with postgres, which, to me, is a significant difference. This means you can indexing by key/value, access keys directly, without parsing the whole json string, etc. For my use case, JSONB support completely killed most NoSQL solutions.
Sorry, I should have said JSONB. Do you still consider a table with a single JSONB column SQL or NoSQL? Sure, it may be contained within a RDBMS but you are treating it more like a document store than a relationship database.
Re: When did Postgres become cool?
#176I've been running postgres since, I think, 2008. Mainly I don't like MSFT in general (although I admit VS Code and WSL are pretty cool). I tried MySQL on my first blog and a couple projects and it just seemed too be a bit to chaotic (how many engines do you need?), then a bit too gross (post acquisition). Some of the guys I work with use MariaDB, but at this point I've met Michael Stonebraker and some hardcore postgr…
Hey, unrelated to DBs, but my view is WSL is boring, seems a VM with mounts, but wine feels much cooler. Interesting view with cloud vendors, there does seem to be a shift from traditional LAMP stack.
WSL2 is cool [for me] because it's boring - boring and stable is what I need on my workhorse. Other "cool" would be distrohopping and unixporn, but that's teenager-like coolness in reverse of the former.
Postgresql will become cool once they start thinking on operators - they still lack simple `show slave status\G` statements for quick checking replication status. Googling everytime for the WTH of tables needs to be queried.
Re: When did Postgres become cool?
#177One thing that made me slightly iffy in one of the usecases Postgres would be a no brainer is the need to vacuum for dead tuples. I was quite sketched by it and instead opted for traditional NoSQL stack. I wonder how people with large volumes of UPSERTs deal with vacuuming, isn’t it a huge operational burden?
There are some interesting things in development to potentially solve that problem.
Here's a recent HN submission about OrioleDB of the more promising ones: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36740921
Source code: https://github.com/orioledb/orioledb
Re: When did Postgres become cool?
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Running Postgres in production since 2017. Some trivia required, but nothing like priest knowledge needed for MySQL. I love not having to be trivia king.
What kinds of things do you need to do for MySQL? I’ve always run postgres, that is why I ask.
One example of the sort of trivia that's burned into my brain: You never want to use the utf8 encoding. It's broken. What everyone else calls utf8 MySQL calls "utf8mb4". MySQL is filled to the brim with this sort of thing.
Re: When did Postgres become cool?
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
"utf8" doesn't support four-byte characters from UTF-8. If you use it and instead mean "utf8mb4" (which was historically not the default), data would be silently truncated (with a warning, but who queries for MySQL warnings?) and lead to all sorts of weird production issues. For many years this was the case until "utf8mb4" was made the default in 2017 . Which is to say, Unicode was broken by default in MySQL until ju…
> Which is to say, Unicode was broken by default in MySQL until just over five years ago. No, stock MySQL has never used a default character set of utf8 (utf8mb3). Prior to MySQL 8, the default character set was latin1, not utf8 (utf8m3). "utf8" being utf8mb3 is indeed a huge foot-gun, but it isn't correct to say that "Unicode was broken by default in MySQL". utf8mb4 has been available for use since 2010 (MySQL 5.5).…
latin1 as an encoding also results in broken Unicode support (for obvious reasons). The point still stands that if you did nothing, you didn't have correct Unicode support, and if you tried to do the correct obvious thing, it was still broken. And a lot of people ran into this, enough that it literally made many folks avoid MySQL.
Re: When did Postgres become cool?
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Which is to say, Unicode was broken by default in MySQL until just over five years ago. No, stock MySQL has never used a default character set of utf8 (utf8mb3). Prior to MySQL 8, the default character set was latin1, not utf8 (utf8m3). "utf8" being utf8mb3 is indeed a huge foot-gun, but it isn't correct to say that "Unicode was broken by default in MySQL". utf8mb4 has been available for use since 2010 (MySQL 5.5).…
latin1 as an encoding also results in broken Unicode support (for obvious reasons). The point still stands that if you did nothing, you didn't have correct Unicode support, and if you tried to do the correct obvious thing, it was still broken. And a lot of people ran into this, enough that it literally made many folks avoid MySQL.
> latin1 as an encoding also results in broken Unicode support
That actually depends on whether your application actually relies on collation behaviors for case insensitivity or accent insensitivity of non-Latin characters.
From experience I can tell you that some of the largest companies in the world actually store unicode in MySQL tables using latin1 character set! It's not ideal and it's conceptually very gross. But in practice it actually works completely fine for these companies, because the relevant collation logic is handled in the application and/or in ancillary services.
Anyway, I agree with your overall point that MySQL should have changed the "utf8" alias to point to utf8mb4 much much earlier. Although I also understand the significant backwards-compatibility concerns (especially regarding logical dumps) which forced MySQL/Sun/Oracle to slow-walk this change.