Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.utanet.at!newscore.univie.ac.at!aconews-feed.univie.ac.at!aconews.univie.ac.at!not-for-mail From: "Laurenz Albe" Newsgroups: comp.databases.postgresql References: <1308640710.210659@proxy.dienste.wien.at> Subject: Is PostgreSQL good? (was: migrating oracle to postgres) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:30:15 +0200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 Organization: dienste.wien.at ISP Message-ID: <1308738638.232318@proxy.dienste.wien.at> X-Cache: nntpcache 2.3.3 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Lines: 38 NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.203.254.23 X-Trace: 1308738639 aconews.univie.ac.at 11354 141.203.254.23 X-Complaints-To: abuse@univie.ac.at Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.databases.postgresql:140 Mladen Gogala wrote: > It is stable, no contest there. Is it good or not is a matter of opinion. > I could list several grave faults which make it less than good in my eyes. > The first and foremost is, of course, the lack of hints. Postgres is the > only major database system which lacks hints. The second is ludicrous > need to "vacuum" database. The third is the fact that Postgres doesn't do > multi-block reads. Fixed size archive logs (16M) would be the next issue. > The lack of shared pool makes it impossible to see the plan of the > statement being executed. And there is more. You begin to sound like a broken record. There are pros and cons to hints, and you can like them or not, but from what you write it seems to be more of an emotional issue than anything else, so I won't enter a discussion here. A liberal use of pejoratives is no substitute for a technical argument. I understand that with your Oracle background it is easy to think that there is only one way to skin the cat, and other approaches are "ludicrous". Please don't turn into a troll. Yours, Laurenz Albe PS: I have a question concerning Oracle's superior query optimizer. I am dinking around with a "Foreign Data Wrapper" for the PostgreSQL 9.1 implementation of SQL/MED to access Oracle. Now it would be nice to get optimizer information from Oracle and feed it back to PostgreSQL so that it can be used for planing a query with a foreign table. Is there any way to get a decent estimate how expensive Oracle thinks a query might be? Something that can be expressed in units like blocks read from disk or time spent? All I can find is the TIME column of PLAN_TABLE which has a granularity of seconds (!) and is never less than 1.