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

It's 2026, Just Use Postgres

tigerdata.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 349 posts

Re: It's 2026, Just Use Postgres

#281

Post by akulkarni »

delish wrote: post #263
ronbenton wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just pasted the first paragraph in an "AI detector" app and it indeed came back as 100% AI. But I heard those things are unreliable. How did you determine this was LLM-generated? The same way?

Apart from the style of the prose, which is my subjective evaluation: This blog post is "a view from nowhere." Tiger Data is a company that sells postgres in some way (don't know, but it doesn't matter for the following): they could speak as themselves, and compare themselves to companies that sell other open source databases. Or they could showcase benchmarks _they ran_. Them saying: "What you get: pgvectorscale use…

I don't understand your example: pgvectorscale was built and is maintained by Tiger Data

Re: It's 2026, Just Use Postgres

#282

Post by akulkarni »

tomhow wrote: post #277
krick wrote: post #245

No, seriously, people need to be punished for submitting LLM-generated garbage without specifying that it's LLM-generated garbage. 400+ points, oh my god, people, what's wrong with you...

We buried the post for seeming obviously-LLM-generated. But please email us about these (hn@ycombinator.com) rather than posting public accusations. There are two reasons why emailing us is better: First, the negative consequences of a false allegation outweigh the benefits of a valid accusation. Second and more important: we'll likely see an email sooner than we'll see a comment, so we can nip it in the bud quickly,…

You buried a popular post because of the public accusation or just your "hunch"?

Why not let your audience decide what it wants to read?

I say this as a long time HN reader, who feels like the community has become grumpier over the years. Which I feel like is a shame. But maybe that's just me.

Re: It's 2026, Just Use Postgres

#283

Post by akulkarni »

akulkarni wrote: post #282
tomhow wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We buried the post for seeming obviously-LLM-generated. But please email us about these (hn@ycombinator.com) rather than posting public accusations. There are two reasons why emailing us is better: First, the negative consequences of a false allegation outweigh the benefits of a valid accusation. Second and more important: we'll likely see an email sooner than we'll see a comment, so we can nip it in the bud quickly,…

You buried a popular post because of the public accusation or just your "hunch"? Why not let your audience decide what it wants to read? I say this as a long time HN reader, who feels like the community has become grumpier over the years. Which I feel like is a shame. But maybe that's just me.

There are also 200+ comments on here and a good discussion IMO which is now unfortunately buried.

Feels like a net negative for the HN community.

Re: It's 2026, Just Use Postgres

#284

Post by phanimahesh »

avmich wrote: post #214
sbayeta wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never heard about postgresql being written for hdds. Could you provide a source?

Well, take a look at the dates of when Postgres was created and when SSDs become available. Better, find articles about internal algorithms, B-trees, times of operations like seeks etc. The Postgres was initially written with disk operation timings in mind, and the point is that's changing - and I haven't heard of Postgres architecture changing with that.

Can you share examples of new database architectures and products using them that are built for SSDs?

I'm sure we have different capabilities and constraints, but I am unaware of any fundamentally different approaches to indexes.

Re: It's 2026, Just Use Postgres

#285

Post by tomhow »

akulkarni wrote: post #282
tomhow wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We buried the post for seeming obviously-LLM-generated. But please email us about these (hn@ycombinator.com) rather than posting public accusations. There are two reasons why emailing us is better: First, the negative consequences of a false allegation outweigh the benefits of a valid accusation. Second and more important: we'll likely see an email sooner than we'll see a comment, so we can nip it in the bud quickly,…

You buried a popular post because of the public accusation or just your "hunch"? Why not let your audience decide what it wants to read? I say this as a long time HN reader, who feels like the community has become grumpier over the years. Which I feel like is a shame. But maybe that's just me.

You're welcome to email us about this.

It's my job to read HN posts and comments all day, every day, and these days that means spending a lot of time evaluating whether a post seems LLM-generated. In this case the post seems LLM-generated or heavily LLM-edited.

We have been asking the community not to publicly call out posts for being LLM-generated, for the reasons I explained in the latest edit of the comment you replied to. But if we're going to ask the community that, we also need to ask submitters to not post obviously-LLM-influenced articles. We've been asking that ever since LLMs became commonplace.

> I say this as a long time HN reader, who feels like the community has become grumpier over the years. Which I feel like is a shame. But maybe that's just me.

We've recently added this line to the guidelines: Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.

HN has become grumpier, and we don't like that. But a lot of it is in reaction to the HN audience being disappointed at a lot of what modern tech companies are serving up, both in terms of products and content, and it doesn't work for us to tell them they're wrong to feel that way. We can try, but we can't force anyone to feel differently. It's just as much up to product creators and content creators to keep working to raise the standards of what they offer the audience.

Re: It's 2026, Just Use Postgres

#286

Post by mulmen »

direwolf20 wrote: post #226
sfifs wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit off topic but the one thing I've never been able to figure out with Postgres easily & reliably is what magic incantations allow a user account full access to a specific database but not to others, particularly in cases of managed postgres offered by cloud providers. `GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES` never seems to work. Having to look up and spend time fixing permissions every time itself makes using Postgres for simple u…

Isn't it something like GRANT ALL ON DATABASE foo TO USER bar

Grant operates on objects that already exist. They probably want ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES or maybe just a superuser. The Postgres docs are actually really really good. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-alterdefaultpriv... https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/role-attributes.html

Re: It's 2026, Just Use Postgres

#287

Post by sangeeth96 »

akulkarni wrote: post #282
tomhow wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We buried the post for seeming obviously-LLM-generated. But please email us about these (hn@ycombinator.com) rather than posting public accusations. There are two reasons why emailing us is better: First, the negative consequences of a false allegation outweigh the benefits of a valid accusation. Second and more important: we'll likely see an email sooner than we'll see a comment, so we can nip it in the bud quickly,…

You buried a popular post because of the public accusation or just your "hunch"? Why not let your audience decide what it wants to read? I say this as a long time HN reader, who feels like the community has become grumpier over the years. Which I feel like is a shame. But maybe that's just me.

I’d be grumpy over wasting my time on an HN post that’s LLM generated which doesn’t state that it is. If I wanted this, I could be prompting N number of chat models available to me instead of meandering over here.

Re: It's 2026, Just Use Postgres

#288

Post by akulkarni »

tomhow wrote: post #285
akulkarni wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You buried a popular post because of the public accusation or just your "hunch"? Why not let your audience decide what it wants to read? I say this as a long time HN reader, who feels like the community has become grumpier over the years. Which I feel like is a shame. But maybe that's just me.

You're welcome to email us about this. It's my job to read HN posts and comments all day, every day, and these days that means spending a lot of time evaluating whether a post seems LLM-generated. In this case the post seems LLM-generated or heavily LLM-edited. We have been asking the community not to publicly call out posts for being LLM-generated, for the reasons I explained in the latest edit of the comment you re…

Thanks Tom, I appreciate the openness. You are seemingly overriding the wishes of the community, but it your community and you have the right to do so. I still think it's a shame, but that's my problem.

Re: It's 2026, Just Use Postgres

#289

Post by gchamonlive »

tomhow wrote: post #277
krick wrote: post #245

No, seriously, people need to be punished for submitting LLM-generated garbage without specifying that it's LLM-generated garbage. 400+ points, oh my god, people, what's wrong with you...

We buried the post for seeming obviously-LLM-generated. But please email us about these (hn@ycombinator.com) rather than posting public accusations. There are two reasons why emailing us is better: First, the negative consequences of a false allegation outweigh the benefits of a valid accusation. Second and more important: we'll likely see an email sooner than we'll see a comment, so we can nip it in the bud quickly,…

Not sure if I should mail this question but, is there any chance those 400+ votes are artificially inflated?

Re: It's 2026, Just Use Postgres

#290

Post by tomhow »

akulkarni wrote: post #288
tomhow wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're welcome to email us about this. It's my job to read HN posts and comments all day, every day, and these days that means spending a lot of time evaluating whether a post seems LLM-generated. In this case the post seems LLM-generated or heavily LLM-edited. We have been asking the community not to publicly call out posts for being LLM-generated, for the reasons I explained in the latest edit of the comment you re…

Thanks Tom, I appreciate the openness. You are seemingly overriding the wishes of the community, but it your community and you have the right to do so. I still think it's a shame, but that's my problem.

> You are seemingly overriding the wishes of the community

That's false. The overwhelming sentiment of the community is that HN should be free of LLM-generated content or content that has obvious AI fingerprints. Sometimes people don't immediately realize that an article or comment has a heavy LLM influence, but once they realize it does, they expect us to act (this is especially true if they didn't realize it initially, as they feel deceived). This is clear from the comments and emails we get about this topic.

If you can publish a new version of the post that is human-authored, we'd happily re-up it.

Post reply on HN