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

201–210 of 246 posts

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#201

Post by Sssnake »

oceanplexian wrote: post #184
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.

You're kidding right? I'd wager that a huge number of MySQL users are using replication. Running a single database in a production environment is totally unacceptable and a major business continuity problem.

>Running a single database in a production environment is totally unacceptable and a major business continuity problem.

You don't need to use mysql's broken replication to get HA. Hell, I've seen more people (wisely) using DRBD for that than using mysql's replication. But even entry level storage devices do replication.

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#202

Post by runako »

eonil wrote: post #158
amock wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PostgreSQL costs more than MySQL according to http://aws.amazon.com/rds/pricing/ .

Price difference seems huge. Looks more than Oracle? Can anyone explain why?

Either they updated the table since you posted, or you're misreading it. MySQL Large is $0.32/hr, PG Large is $0.336/hr, Oracle is $0.565/hr.

I don't know why the MySQL/PG prices are different.

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#203

Post by whatusername »

oceanplexian wrote: post #184
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.

You're kidding right? I'd wager that a huge number of MySQL users are using replication. Running a single database in a production environment is totally unacceptable and a major business continuity problem.

How many wordpress installs use replication?

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#204

Post by eonil »

runako wrote: post #202
eonil wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price difference seems huge. Looks more than Oracle? Can anyone explain why?

Either they updated the table since you posted, or you're misreading it. MySQL Large is $0.32/hr, PG Large is $0.336/hr, Oracle is $0.565/hr. I don't know why the MySQL/PG prices are different.

My fault. I misread it. PostgreSQL has only heavy-utilization unit on reserved instance. I thought it's light utilization unit.

Heavy/Large/1yr(reserved, multiAZ)/Tokyo: PostgreSQL = $1548, Oracle = $2440

Seems reasonable price. And I don't care MySQL price because it's not an option to me.

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#205

Post by gtaylor »

oceanplexian wrote: post #183
Iftheshoefits wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For starters, the requirement of a third-party library introduces at least two problems: 1. An additional potential point of failure 2. The core software (a DB, in this case) can (and probably will) evolve independently of the third-party tool--thus introducing an additional layer of maintenance problems. I'd argue further--and this is of course just an opinion--that such a basic feature as this ought to be supported…

Percona and pt-online-schema-change is not just "some third-party library". It's an industry-standard tool and one of the most respected forks of MySQL. It's not a layer of maintenance problems and they sell commercial support. Their customers include the BBC, Yelp, and Cisco: http://www.percona.com/about-us/customers Also, for the record, Oracle added online schema changes in 5.6.

So you actually have to use a fork of MySQL to get online schema changes? I was thinking this was just a drop-in of some sort.

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#206

Post by jacques_chester »

eli wrote: post #44
adrianh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Postgres actually cares about your data. Perhaps you mistakenly insert "2013-10-32" into a date column. MySQL will silently convert this to "0000-00-00" (!!). Postgres will raise an error. Perhaps you make an error in a transaction. MySQL lets you keep doing subsequent things in the transaction. Postgres treats the transaction as invalid and forces you to start over. Perhaps you want to add a column to a table that h…

Hey at least it throws a warning on the bogus date conversion (MySQL warnings should almost always be treated as fatal errors). The thing that kills me with MySQL (technically it's with InnoDB-based storage enginges in MySQL) are the subtle quirks. Like the thing where it insists on writing temporary tables to disk if you do a query that selects TEXT or BLOB fields. Even if they could have easily fit in memory, it's…

I run a small Wordpress network. MySQL's insistence on going to disk for joins on tables with a TEXT field (even if the query doesn't touch those fields) is probably the major performance bottleneck.

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#207

Post by [deleted] »

ceejayoz wrote: post #140
avenger123 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one's watching. Your initial comment just really didn't add any value. Calling Heroku monolith compared to Amazon is an understatement and I don't see Heroku being "wiped off the map" from this.

https://twitter.com/scottvdp/status/401111184092315648 > RDS 4XL vs Heroku Mecha: 40% cheaper on demand, 74% cheaper 1 year reserved, 82% cheaper 3 year reserved... with more features and capacity. If that's true, Heroku's Postgres offering isn't going to do well. "Wiped off the map" may be an overstatement, but not by that much.

[deleted]

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#208

Post by jacques_chester »

r888888888 wrote: post #113
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.

IMO it was when Oracle bought MySQL and effectively killed development. MySQL still lives on with MariaDB I suppose, but in the years since Postgres has leapfrogged it in terms of functionality.

I'm a PostgreSQL fan, but Oracle are investing in MySQL development, but their flavour of open source compliance is tarballing.

5.6 had some pretty critical improvements, especially to the query planner.

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#209

Post by jacques_chester »

eonil wrote: post #194
pbreit wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 annoyi…

The analogy I use: PostgreSQL makes you eat your vegetables.

Re: Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL

#210

Post by enjo »

ancarda wrote: post #152
KingMob wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That would be amazing. Sequel Pro makes MySQL management so easy. Have you emailed the author asking for that feature? Edit: It seems they are working on it but I i'm not sure when we can expect a release: http://stuconnolly.com/blog/sequel-pro-postgresql-support/

That article is from September of 2012.
Post reply on HN