PostgreSQL 9.0 Final Release Available Now

PostgreSQL 9.0 Final Release Available Now(postgresql.org)

121 points by mindaugas 15 years ago | 23 comments

siglesias 15 years ago |

Can anybody point to a good discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of PostgreSQL relative to MySQL? Or can you weigh in briefly about the tradeoffs between the two?

EDIT: Okay, must've touched a few nerves there. Sorry. Question was asked in earnest.

jacobian 15 years ago | |

Historically, MySQL has focused on ease of use, speed out-of-the-box, and aimed to be a lightweight, "personal" database (hence the "My"). This fast & light focus meant that certain "BigDB" features (triggers, transactions, ...) fell by the wayside.

On the other hand, PostgreSQL has historically focused on correctness and full support for advanced database features, looking to supplant Oracle and SQLServer. This meant that speed and ease of use sometimes suffered.

Today, though, both databases have mostly caught up -- MySQL has implemented most of the big ticket features that PostgreSQL had for years, and PostgreSQL (especially with the 9.0 release) has gotten far easier to use and tune, and is now as fast (or faster) than MySQL on most workloads.

The heritage still shows, at times: MySQL, even in "strict" mode, still suffers from annoying bugs and mis-interpretations of SQL features. PostgreSQL is still slow out of the box, often needing to be carefully tuned for the best performance.

Disclaimer: major PostgreSQL user and fan here. I've tried to give as objective an answer as I can.

gaius 15 years ago | | |

It's more subtle than that. The MySQL people never really understood relational databases or the way they were used. Back in the 90s, their documentation was full of explanations about why you didn't need foreign keys (too slow) or transactions (do it in your application if you need it) etc etc etc. They "grew up" a bit as the years went by and grudgingly added a few of these features in as an afterthought.

But if you need a single-user database there's SQLite and if you need a free serious RDBMS there's Postgres. There's really no ecological niche for MySQL. It only hangs on because sites like Slashdot use it (and if you have thousands of reads for every write, and do only very simple queries, it is adequate).

leftnode 15 years ago | | |

My was Monty's daughter's name. It's also why his next database is MariaDB, that's his other daughter's name. The My as in ownership and My as his daughters name was just a good coincidence.

biog 15 years ago | |

I prefer PostgreSQL. The fact that it doesn't have many of MySQL's limitations is a big plus. Just he ability to add a column on a large table without locking the thing for a huge amount of time would be great for us. PostgreSQL can also use multiple indexes which, again, is a serious plus. The error messages that PostgreSQL returns can be much more informative than MySQL. At times when you screw up a query instead of "this is impossible" or "you can't do that", you get something more akin to "this is impossible because of X". Again, this is just my impression. Basically, PostgreSQL feels more like an open source Oracle (a grown up database) than MySQL (which doesn't feel very Oracle-y).

Now the tools are MUCH less friendly, but if you come from an Oracle (or probably DB2) world you'll be used to it. While they require more cryptic commands, they do work very well.

There is the replication thing. When we picked PostgreSQL back up this year to play with for a new little system, we discovered that they took one of the formerly external replication systems and it has been put into the tree. This is a very good step, as the replication situation was a big problem for us. Before there were little third party things (based on triggers) that you could take your chances with, and there were paid replication solutions. Having one built in is quite nice.

kijinbear 15 years ago | | |

PostgreSQL forces you to write proper queries. MySQL is designed to accommodate lousy practices, and all those implicit type conversions and non-standard syntax will come back to bite you as a big WTF.

Other reasons I like PostgreSQL: more data types (MySQL doesn't even have a boolean type), partial indexing (a godsend when you have large tables), ability to use multiple indexes when querying, full-text search and ACID are not mutually exclusive, and multiple procedural languages.

[edit] Oops, didn't mean to make this a reply.

jacquesm 15 years ago | |

Of all the flamewar subjects, I think that one is just about the most tried and true one.

siglesias 15 years ago | | |

I wasn't trying to start a flamewar! I'm just coding up my first major project and needed help deciding, specifically which one plays better with django.

avar 15 years ago |

Yesterday's thread discussing 9.0: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1706030

mindaugas 15 years ago |

Full release notes http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/release-9-0

ghotli 15 years ago |

Has anyone been using PostGIS with the RCs? Is it stable and ready for production?

biog 15 years ago | |

I use PostGIS with 9.0RC without any problems.

epi0Bauqu 15 years ago |

Why use hot-standby over streaming replication or visa-versa?

gxti 15 years ago | |

It's a free upgrade from warm standby, whereas SR requires a little more configuration. A good SR cluster also requires that log archiving (warm/hot standby) be set up in case the stream gets behind, otherwise you're at the mercy of whatever happens to be in the master's xlog.

crad 15 years ago | |

Hot-Standby: Ability to query against what used to be Warm-Standby boxes which were for disaster recovery only. Streaming Replication: sending log data over sockets instead of relying on shell commands to send logfiles over.

They work together to make for happy master-slave replication.

It's worth noting this is database server level. Hot-standby copies 100% of a PostgreSQL instance. If you want to replicate individual databases on a server or individual tables in a database, Longdiste, Bucardo or Slony are still the way to go.