[ale] On Databases...

[Stuffed Crust]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 11:15:08AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > Unfortunately, as good as postgresql is, it's relatively
> > slow..
> 
> Huh...  When's the last time you looked at it?  It seems pretty zippy to me.

The last version I used in production was v7.1.2; I was evaluating v7.2
when Incanta folded.. it seemed to be about the same speed, but had many
other features (and bug fixes) that were highly desireable.. like live
non-locking vacuums.

While it may be "zippy", that doesn't change the fact that it's still
relatively slow, certianly compared to the heavy-hitters, but also
compared to (dare I say it) MySQL, at lest on simple queries. 
(Meanwhile, I think that MySQL is otherwise mediocre)

Anyway, I got to use PostgreSQL quite extensively for the better part of
two years.   It's definately the best you can do without forking over
gobs of cash... 

> > and more importantly, it lacks things like database
> > replication
> 
> Really?  www.pgsql.com/press/PR_5.html begs to differ (and this was in
> 2000).

http://developer.postgresql.org/todo.php

The very first entry in the URGENT list:

*  Add replication of distributed databases

The rserv stuff is actually quite similar to a tool we developed
internally.  They're both external programs that watch the database for
changes, then propogate those changes to another database.    Though our
tool was considerably more robust...

But I digress.  The WAL has a lot of potential as the basis of a
replication system; far better than the trigger-based model
that Rserve uses. 

But back to my original point.  Postgresql lacks replication features.

 - Pizza
-- 
Solomon Peachy                                   pizza at f*ckthesuers.org
I'm not broke, but I'm badly bent.                         ICQ #1318344
Patience comes to those who wait.                         Melbourne, FL

 PGP signature