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

31–40 of 162 posts

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#31

Post by sovnade »

Scarbutt wrote: post #29
dspillett wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest (SQL Server guy mainly, so only partly keep up with what other engines are doing), what changes significantly affect performance (without making changes to your own code/configuration to make use of new features) in 10.x & 11.x?

Out of interest ;) SQL Server is such an expensive beast, ~$15K per core, what are your reasons for prefering it over PG?

It's about $7000 per core for enterprise - and if you do something like license a whole blade and put VMs on top of it, you could fairly easily run 10-20+ SQL VMs on one decent sized blade for < 150k. And anything pre-prod is free. It's a small cost for most larger size companies of this scale. If you have one or two servers, then no, enterprise is probably out of reach.

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#32

Post by dspillett »

greggyb wrote: post #23
dspillett wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are slow to upgrade database systems, as it can take a log of regression testing to make absolutely sure your applications don't rely on unsupported/undocumented/undefined behaviours that make them compatible with the newest release (or are affected by officially acknowledged breaking changes). Especially in enterprise systems. Even if developers upgrade quickly, their clients with on-prem installations may no…

2008 and R2 are still in a supported phase of life. It's the "exorbitant support fee" phase. Nevertheless, you can still get Microsoft support for the two after the "EOL". It's more an end-of-public life

Aye, and by the same technicality you can still get support for 2005.

Similar with PG I assume. You could always pay someone an expensive contracting fee to support your use of an older version than is publicly supported.

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#33

Post by eropple »

Scarbutt wrote: post #29
dspillett wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest (SQL Server guy mainly, so only partly keep up with what other engines are doing), what changes significantly affect performance (without making changes to your own code/configuration to make use of new features) in 10.x & 11.x?

Out of interest ;) SQL Server is such an expensive beast, ~$15K per core, what are your reasons for prefering it over PG?

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.

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#35

Post by dspillett »

Scarbutt wrote: post #29
dspillett wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest (SQL Server guy mainly, so only partly keep up with what other engines are doing), what changes significantly affect performance (without making changes to your own code/configuration to make use of new features) in 10.x & 11.x?

Out of interest ;) SQL Server is such an expensive beast, ~$15K per core, what are your reasons for prefering it over PG?

Day job. Never had to pay for it out of my own pocket! I've worked at MS shops for quite some time.

Also while we can do what we like with our newer SaaS offerings, getting some of our on-prem clients to use PG over SQL Server would be an uphill struggle so not considering other options isn't entirely our decision.

That $15K sounds like an Enterprise Edition costing too, IIRC Standard is significantly cheaper. Most don't need Enterprise, especially since 2016Sp1 when a lot of previously Enterprise-only features became available in all editions (including the free Express edition in many cases). Developer edition is currently free (licensed for development use only, of course) and is essentially Enterprise edition with different licensing terms.

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#36

Post by skymt »

SnowingXIV wrote: post #14

Running 10.7 and 10.6 on two production applications with Heroku. Thinking about moving to 11 to ensure support for the long run as I rarely need to touch this and it's very stable but would like to minimize any headaches in the future. Any complications or hiccups I need to worry about moving from 10 to 11? Per Heroku Docs: By supporting at least 3 major versions, users are required to upgrade roughly once every thr…

The release notes for version 11 include a list of potentially incompatible changes: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/release-11.html#id-1.11.6...

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#38

Post by Xylakant »

dochtman wrote: post #26

It's unfortunate that the official Docker images haven't been updated yet (on DockerHub).

keep in mind that the "official" docker images are "offical" in the sense of docker inc marking them as official, not in the sense of "the upstream provides these". This is the repo for the Dockerfiles https://github.com/docker-library/postgres and it begins with:

> This is the Git repo of the Docker "Official Image" for postgres (not to be confused with any official postgres image provided by postgres upstream)

Re: PostgreSQL 11.3 and 10.8

#40

Post by ape4 »

dspillett wrote: post #17
rtpg wrote: post #13

For those stuck on older versions of Postgres, I highly recommend paying the downtime to upgrade. Going from 9.x to 11 will get you a measurably large performance gain for free.

Out of interest (SQL Server guy mainly, so only partly keep up with what other engines are doing), what changes significantly affect performance (without making changes to your own code/configuration to make use of new features) in 10.x & 11.x?

It kinda bugs me that people say "SQL Server" to mean "Microsoft SQL Server". I mean, there are other sql servers.
Post reply on HN