PostgreSQL 9.6 Released
postgresql.org
PostgreSQL 9.6 Released
1–10 of 136 posts
Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 Released
#2Anyone know the state of BDR in 9.6?
http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/bdr-is-coming-to-postgresql-9-6/
Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 Released
#3Anyone know the state of BDR in 9.6? http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/bdr-is-coming-to-postgresql-9-6/
See discussion from 3 days ago (69 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12576116
TL;DR: It is not in mainline, but it does not need a patch anymore. You need to bring your own conflict resolution logic.
Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 Released
#4Congratulations to the PostgreSQL Global Development Group on a much-anticipated release.
Curious about this:
> parallelism can speed up big data queries by as much as 32 times faster
Why would it be only 32 times faster? The sky's the limit if there aren't major bottlenecks on the way.
Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 Released
#5Congratulations to the PostgreSQL Global Development Group on a much-anticipated release. Curious about this: > parallelism can speed up big data queries by as much as 32 times faster Why would it be only 32 times faster? The sky's the limit if there aren't major bottlenecks on the way.
No one has tested a query that got more than 32x faster, so they don't want to promise something they can't prove.
Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 Released
#6Anyone know the state of BDR in 9.6? http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/bdr-is-coming-to-postgresql-9-6/
See discussion from 3 days ago (69 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12576116 TL;DR: It is not in mainline, but it does not need a patch anymore. You need to bring your own conflict resolution logic.
Or design the application so that there are no conflicts (e.g. modifying different subsets of users on different nodes).
Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 Released
#7A tangential question:
Everyone speaks about InnoDB and how performant and reliable it is... and multiple firms even use it as a KV-store (Uber/Pinterest/AWS) bypassing MySQL entirely. I have never heard much about storage engines in Postgres, why could this be so?
Wikipedia has a (stub) article on InnoDB, but nothing on Postgres' storage engines... just wondering why that is.
Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 Released
#8Congratulations to the PostgreSQL Global Development Group on a much-anticipated release. Curious about this: > parallelism can speed up big data queries by as much as 32 times faster Why would it be only 32 times faster? The sky's the limit if there aren't major bottlenecks on the way.
They likely benchmarked it on a 32 core system. Like a dual Opteron board. If the task was single-threaded before a 32-fold improvement is reasonable.
Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 Released
#9Congratulations to the PostgreSQL Global Development Group on a much-anticipated release. Curious about this: > parallelism can speed up big data queries by as much as 32 times faster Why would it be only 32 times faster? The sky's the limit if there aren't major bottlenecks on the way.
They likely benchmarked it on a 32 core system. Like a dual Opteron board. If the task was single-threaded before a 32-fold improvement is reasonable.
It's very difficult to get a 32x speedup from 32 cores as there are always parts that are inherently serial, so it's more likely they tested it on a 64 core machine or something like that.
Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 Released
#10A tangential question: Everyone speaks about InnoDB and how performant and reliable it is... and multiple firms even use it as a KV-store (Uber/Pinterest/AWS) bypassing MySQL entirely. I have never heard much about storage engines in Postgres, why could this be so? Wikipedia has a (stub) article on InnoDB, but nothing on Postgres' storage engines... just wondering why that is.
PostgreSQL, for better or worse, doesn't have pluggable storage engines. There's some discussion on their dev mailing list about the possibility of adding that capability in PG10, though: http://postgresql.nabble.com/Pluggable-storage-td5916322.htm...
Some earlier (2013) discussion on the same topic: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/2013UnconfPluggableStorage