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

Amazon RDS now supports PostgreSQL 9.6.1

postgresql.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: Amazon RDS now supports PostgreSQL 9.6.1

#71

Post by dhd415 »

estefan wrote: post #67
snissn wrote: post #17

Does anyone else have abysmal IO performance on postgres RDS? I have a 200 gb provisioned ssd with 2000 iops and get abysmal bulk read performance - the panel will report 30 mb/s and query speed is really slow with disk being the bottleneck

IIRC there are various tricks you used to have to perform to get it to strip across different disks in the backend. Something along the lines of allocating 20% of your storage and then increasing it 5 times until you had what you wanted. If you provisioned a server immediately to full capacity you'd end up with your data too close together which degraded performance. That's something I heard that used to be true but…

Interesting, I've never heard of striping tricks like that. Do you have any links on that? And I suppose that could be applicable to EBS since it rather than S3 is the backing store for RDS.

Re: Amazon RDS now supports PostgreSQL 9.6.1

#72

Post by akbar501 »

wasd wrote: post #70
jakobegger wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many options for hosted PostgreSQL. See for example this staggering list of hosting providers in Europe: https://www.postgresql.org/support/professional_hosting/euro... Yes, most of those are smaller companies. But some of these companies are directly involved in the development of PostgreSQL (just look at the PostgreSQL-hackers mailing list), so they should really know what they are doing!

That's a great point. I've heard of some smaller companies (compose, elephantsql) but to be honest, I have definitely not considered them. The reason is that I just want all inclusive solution and I don't have much context for these companies. How healthy they are, what's the likelyhood of them going out of business, etc. I think you bring up a good point. I'm going to put aside my bias and give a smaller company a s…

Compose.io is owned by IBM. I had a chance to meet both the Compose team and a few people from IBM at the DataLayer conference. They are passionate and smart.

Compose is in a sweet spot right now. They run with the speed of a startup, but have access to IBM's massive resources. Really the best of both worlds.

Re: Amazon RDS now supports PostgreSQL 9.6.1

#73

Post by pjlegato »

wasd wrote: post #3

I'm fairly impressed by RDS's turn around time. 9.6 dropped in late September and they're already supporting it in just over a month. I wish Google Cloud SQL supported Postgres at all. Sad that there's limited competition in managed postgres space (most notable competitor being Heroku).

My company, Database Labs, runs Postgres as a service in Google Cloud -- https://www.databaselabs.io/pricing/#google-cloud

Re: Amazon RDS now supports PostgreSQL 9.6.1

#74

Post by pjlegato »

jonatron wrote: post #50
qaq wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You max out at 30,000 IOPS so about 1/3 of consumer grade SSD or 1/10 of a decent PCIE SSD.

It's frustrating that AWS doesn't offer something ideal for databases. Databases should be run with fast local storage, on reliable dedicated hardware. VM instances on shared hardware that may be retired at short notice aren't ideal.

We (databaselabs.io) did some customer dev tests for that exact product (databases with fast local hardware storage.) We found that almost all customers didn't care about getting that level of performance (enough to pay for it, anyway.) For ~99%, cloud-level shared storage is all they'll pay for. Finding the other 1% is a very expensive long-cycle sales and marketing proposition, so we decided to market cloud solutions to the 99%.

That said, we are equipped to run the 'fast dedicated hardware' solution (we come from a managed services background) -- just write me, pjlegato at databaselabs.io, and I'll get you set up.

Re: Amazon RDS now supports PostgreSQL 9.6.1

#75

Post by tokenizerrr »

oskari wrote: post #69
tokenizerrr wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people really talk to databases over WAN (which means relatively high latency)? I was under the impression this was a bad idea.

Many of the hosting providers provide PG as a service in multiple clouds / hosting providers allowing you to run your applications on your own VMs in the same cloud. So while you would be using the external IP addresses to communicate with the database it'd still be in the same datacenter. Also, as pointed out in the parent post, some of the hosting providers such as us (Aiven, https://aiven.io ) are directly involve…

Running within the same cloud provider makes sense, I hadn't thought of that.

Re: Amazon RDS now supports PostgreSQL 9.6.1

#76

Post by theptip »

craigkerstiens wrote: post #64
theptip wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah Google Cloud SQL's lack of Postgres support really stings. Would be great to see them branch out a bit. I suppose they have more experience with MySQL given that Youtube runs on it...

It looks like it's pretty clear recently that Postgres support in some form from Google is coming - https://code.google.com/p/googlecloudsql/issues/detail?id=96

Umm... the only signal on that issue is that it got changed to "accepted" recently without any comment about ETA. I've seen issues sit in that state for quite some time, so that doesn't look all that encouraging or clear to me.

That said, thanks for the link; I've voted for it and will keep an eye out there for future updates.

Re: Amazon RDS now supports PostgreSQL 9.6.1

#77

Post by seamusabshere »

wasd wrote: post #3

I'm fairly impressed by RDS's turn around time. 9.6 dropped in late September and they're already supporting it in just over a month. I wish Google Cloud SQL supported Postgres at all. Sad that there's limited competition in managed postgres space (most notable competitor being Heroku).

i wrote about why i thought citus was the best a week ago: http://blog.faraday.io/3-reasons-citus-is-best-non-heroku-po...

Re: Amazon RDS now supports PostgreSQL 9.6.1

#78

Post by brianwawok »

brazzledazzle wrote: post #43
philliphaydon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had this issue. Luckily they recently added native backups to s3 so we had 3 hours of downtime to backup a 180gb db and restore to a new 500gb instance.

Jesus. I'm no strategy genius but sometimes it seems like they want to cede the Windows market to Azure. Some of the Windows stuff in AWS seems kind of "me too".

Is the windows server market with fighting for? Ms makes the most profit no matter who runs the hardware.

Re: Amazon RDS now supports PostgreSQL 9.6.1

#79

Post by brazzledazzle »

brianwawok wrote: post #78
brazzledazzle wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus. I'm no strategy genius but sometimes it seems like they want to cede the Windows market to Azure. Some of the Windows stuff in AWS seems kind of "me too".

Is the windows server market with fighting for? Ms makes the most profit no matter who runs the hardware.

That's a fair point. And if it really came down to it they could (and arguably do with things like SQL server) make the licensing terms less agreeable for other cloud operators.

Re: Amazon RDS now supports PostgreSQL 9.6.1

#80

Post by estefan »

dhd415 wrote: post #71
estefan wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC there are various tricks you used to have to perform to get it to strip across different disks in the backend. Something along the lines of allocating 20% of your storage and then increasing it 5 times until you had what you wanted. If you provisioned a server immediately to full capacity you'd end up with your data too close together which degraded performance. That's something I heard that used to be true but…

Interesting, I've never heard of striping tricks like that. Do you have any links on that? And I suppose that could be applicable to EBS since it rather than S3 is the backing store for RDS.

Sorry I don't have links. But yes, I think it was primarily to improve the performance of EBS, not S3 (been a while since I had to work on that sort of thing).
Post reply on HN