Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.databases.postgresql > #476 > unrolled thread

why is postgresql better than mariadb?

Back to article view | Back to comp.databases.postgresql

Contents

  why is postgresql better than mariadb? johannes falcone <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-08-15 20:20 -0700
    Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2013-08-17 12:54 +0000
    Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Harry Tuttle <SOZRBLNTLEEE@spammotel.com> - 2013-08-18 21:40 +0200
      Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Mario Splivalo <majk@fly.srk.fer.hr> - 2013-09-12 19:57 +0000
        Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Harry Tuttle <SOZRBLNTLEEE@spammotel.com> - 2013-09-12 22:16 +0200
        Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 08:21 +0000
          Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> - 2013-10-06 12:10 +0200
            Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 20:44 +0000
              Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> - 2013-10-06 23:17 +0200
            Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Harry Tuttle <SOZRBLNTLEEE@spammotel.com> - 2013-10-07 18:03 +0200
              Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> - 2013-10-07 18:30 +0200
                Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Milo Minderbinder <milo@mmenterprises.invalid> - 2013-10-09 01:51 +0000
              Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb Milo Minderbinder <milo@mmenterprises.invalid> - 2013-10-09 01:46 +0000
                Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-10-09 08:41 +0200
                  Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2013-10-25 03:24 +0000
          Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Fredrik Jonson <fredrik@jonson.org> - 2013-10-11 12:17 +0000
            Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Paul Sephton <prsephton@gmail.com> - 2013-10-14 03:47 -0700
              Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Harry Tuttle <SOZRBLNTLEEE@spammotel.com> - 2013-10-14 18:52 +0200
                Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2013-10-25 03:58 +0000
              Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2013-10-25 03:55 +0000
            Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2013-10-25 03:50 +0000
              Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2013-10-25 04:07 +0000
              Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> - 2013-10-25 10:09 +0200
              Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? johannes falcone <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-07 10:52 -0800
      Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? johannes falcone <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-12-07 10:58 -0800
    Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 08:24 +0000
      Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? johannes falcone <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-04-09 02:32 -0700
    Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Marcello Dias <marcellaodobrasil@gmail.com> - 2013-11-29 07:39 -0800
      Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? johannes falcone <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-04-09 02:33 -0700
    Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Marcello Dias <marcellaodobrasil@gmail.com> - 2013-11-29 09:17 -0800
      Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-12-02 21:18 +0100
    Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Marcello Dias <marcellaodobrasil@gmail.com> - 2013-11-30 05:59 -0800
      Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? eric@invalid.com (EricF) - 2013-12-04 04:11 +0000
      Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? johannes falcone <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-04-09 02:37 -0700
    Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? Marcello Dias <marcellaodobrasil@gmail.com> - 2013-12-07 02:53 -0800
    Re: why is postgresql better than mariadb? yangnw@live.com - 2014-05-12 08:06 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#503

On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:17:36 +0000, Fredrik Jonson wrote:

>  don't know what strange database environments you're the DBA or
>  designer
> of Mladen, but your dependency to a fault on query hints is really
> curious.
> 
> You can easily use Postgresql, Mysql, Mariadb and many other database
> engines for decades in regular service with various interesting loads
> and volume requirements without ever having a problem that requires
> hints to be resolved.

So thee is no reason for MySQL, Mariadb, MS SQL Server, Oracle or DB2 to 
implement them? Now, that's interesting! Those guys aside, why did 
EnterpriseDB implement them? 
And having worked as a DBA (mostly Oracle, but also DB2 and RDB a long, 
long time ago) for approximately quarter of century, I must tell you that 
I encountered problem that required hints every month or so.
Basically, hints were required whenever an application starts misbehaving 
and a rapid fix is required. Sometimes, you can get by by simply 
rewriting SQL, sometimes you can not. I have worked for an HMO, media 
company and hedge fund, among the others. What is your experience as a 
DBA?


> 
> I'm sure you'd be happy to provide us with contrieved examples of how
> hints saves your day on regular basis. 

No need for contrived examples and artificial constructions. There are 
two cases which PostgreSQL optimizer cannot handle well: correlated 
columns and partitioning. Other deficiencies of partitioning aside, 
partition elimination is done at parse time, so if bind variables are 
used, there is no way for the optimizer to figure out which index to use. 
Those are known gaping holes in the optimizer. They are encountered far 
more frequently than one thinks. Bringing the data model to the 3rd and 
4th normal form is a forgotten art among many developers, resulting in 
frequent occurrences of the correlated columns.

> However there is ample proof that
> Postgresql works ever so well as other database systems, even though it
> doesn't implement hints. If there wasn't, don't you think developers and
> system designers would abandone Postgresql in droves? Hint: They don't.

Of course they don't abandon Postgresql in droves. PostgreSQL doesn't 
have droves of users in the first place. The fact is that the market 
share of PostgreSQL is very minuscule. And the fact is that it remains so 
for a reason. The fact is also that both MySQL and MariaDB have more 
users than PostgreSQL. 


> 
> For anyone who want to know why the Postgresql community currently do
> not consider hints to be very interesting, I encourage you to read this:
> 
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/OptimizerHintsDiscussion
> 

Again, the main guy on design committee works for EnterpriseDB. 
EnterpriseDB has hints. Not that they help them very much, but the hints 
are there. It would be nice for all those developers working for 
EnterpriseDB to explain why are hints good when talking about EnterpriseDB 
and why hints are not good when it comes to PostgreSQL.

There is also more basic question. The fact is that hints are appearing 
as a subject over and over again, which proves the demand. Yet developers 
don't want to implement something that users keep asking for. Why would 
anyone want to use such a database when there are databases whose 
designers are open to the users suggestions? Here we have a database 
whose designers are telling users that they don't need something. There 
is something wrong here, the users are supposed to tell designers what do 
they need, not the other way round.





-- 
Mladen Gogala
The Oracle Whisperer
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#506

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 03:50:17 +0000, Mladen Gogala wrote:

> Of course they don't abandon Postgresql in droves. PostgreSQL doesn't
> have droves of users in the first place.

To illustrate that, I there were PostgreSQL days in 2011 in NYC and 
MongoDB days in NYC in 2011. Postgres event was dwarfed by the MongoDB 
event. That showed me everything I needed to know. Part of the reason why 
PostgreSQL remains obscure database used by scientific institutions which 
have very little money and practically nobody else is the fact that it is 
simply inadequate database. Part of the reason why Postgres is and 
remains inadequate is the fact that its designers are arrogant enough to 
try telling their users what they need and what they don't need. The 
process works the other way around: users ask, designers implement.



-- 
Mladen Gogala
The Oracle Whisperer
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#507

Hi,

Some of the points you raise are pretty interesting and well founded, it
would be so much better if you didn't put as much false statements and
FUD around it.

I still take some time to answer that email in case some poor soul gets
impressed by your very strong statements. I want to remind readers here
that as in the real world, the one who feels the need to talk louder is
not always the one who's saying the most trustworthy story.

Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> writes:
> So thee is no reason for MySQL, Mariadb, MS SQL Server, Oracle or DB2 to 
> implement them? Now, that's interesting! Those guys aside, why did 
> EnterpriseDB implement them? 

They have a Marketing department.

> No need for contrived examples and artificial constructions. There are 
> two cases which PostgreSQL optimizer cannot handle well: correlated 
> columns and partitioning. Other deficiencies of partitioning aside, 

True.

> Of course they don't abandon Postgresql in droves. PostgreSQL doesn't 
> have droves of users in the first place. The fact is that the market 
> share of PostgreSQL is very minuscule. And the fact is that it remains so 
> for a reason. The fact is also that both MySQL and MariaDB have more 
> users than PostgreSQL. 

FUD.

Same argument line with Windows, which must be the best OS around
because of its Market Share. Oh well, in 2013 we should talk about
Android really, and iOS maybe?

The main reason why MySQL and forks have more users is historical then
Marketing. Yes, Open Source projects too are influenced by Marketing.

> Again, the main guy on design committee works for EnterpriseDB. 

Wrong.

First, there is no design committee, there's a mailing-list.
Second, there's no main guy, there are contributors and committers.

> and why hints are not good when it comes to PostgreSQL.

Because we want to fix the optimiser. If you query plan is wrong, open a
bug report, and we will fix the query planner and optimiser.

And actually, any PostgreSQL DBA worth is salt knows how to hint
PostgreSQL query planning, with SQL standard tools such as CTEs (WITH
queries) and OFFSET in subquery, for instance.

Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> writes:

> To illustrate that, I there were PostgreSQL days in 2011 in NYC and 
> MongoDB days in NYC in 2011. Postgres event was dwarfed by the MongoDB 
> event. That showed me everything I needed to know. Part of the reason why 

FUD from your part and Marketing for explaining what you saw.

> PostgreSQL remains obscure database used by scientific institutions which 
> have very little money and practically nobody else is the fact that it is 
> simply inadequate database

FUD again.

Please realise that what you know of the world outside and the actual
world outside might be different things. What I know of the world
outside is in total contradiction with your statements here.

>. Part of the reason why Postgres is and 
> remains inadequate is the fact that its designers are arrogant enough to 
> try telling their users what they need and what they don't need. The 
> process works the other way around: users ask, designers implement.

What I like the most in the PostgreSQL Community is that PostgreSQL is
developped by people who are actually using it on a daily basis, as DBA
or consultants.

From the inside of the PostgreSQL Community your statement here makes no
sense, it's FUD again. Please take a moment and breathe.

> How come? Would you care to explain a bit? The user you are talking about 
> doesn't understand Oracle and is asking for something that Oracle doesn't 
> need. Are you claiming that PostgreSQL optimizer is so good that it 
> doesn't need hints? Did I understand you correctly?

When all you have is a hammer, every problem you want to solve indeed
looks very much like a nail.

Regards,
-- 
Dimitri Fontaine
PostgreSQL DBA, Architecte

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#523

oracle is a curse

oracle must die

don't buy oracle no matter what

larry ellison is a twerpy scam artist

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#524

On Sunday, August 18, 2013 12:40:30 PM UTC-7, Harry Tuttle wrote:
> johannes falcone wrote on 16.08.2013 05:20:
> 
> > why?
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Things that MySQL (and I believe MariaDB as well) still doesn't have (and PostgreSQL has):
> 
> 
> 
> deferrable constraints
> 
> check constraints
> 
> Non transactional FK evaluation (http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/innodb-foreign-key-constraints.html)
> 
>    --> constraints are always checked row-by-row, not on statement level
> 
> recursive queries
> 
> table functions
> 
> common table expressions
> 
> windowing functions
> 
> function based index
> 
> partial index
> 
> transactional DDL
> 
> full text search on transactional tables (changed with 5.6)
> 
> GIS features on transactional tables
> 
> MINUS or INTERSECT operator
> 
> stemming in full text search
> 
> user defined aggregate functions
> 
> domains or user defined types
> 
> statement level triggers
> 
> conditional triggers
> 
>    Triggers are not fired from cascading deletes
> 
> sequences
> 
> EXPLAIN for non-select statements or prepared statements (seems to have changed with MySQL 5.6)
> 
> No descending indexes
> 
> Sub-Selects and derived tables are still 2nd class "citizens"
> 
> --> cannot use table being updated in a subselect
> 
> --> cannot use derived tables in views
> 
> rename columns that are part of a foreign key constraint
> 
> call stored procedures in triggers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things that Postgres doesn't have that MySQL/MariaDB has
> 
> 
> 
> WITH CHECK option for views
> 
> declarative partitioning

outstanding post

thank you

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 20:20:09 -0700, johannes falcone wrote:

> why?

It isn't. There is a reason why PostgreSQL has been largely ignored by 
business community. Actually, there are several reasons:

- No hints
- Partitioning is a joke: no global indexes, optimizer problems.
- No built-in parallelism.

PostgreSQL is simply inadequate. 



-- 
Mladen Gogala
The Oracle Whisperer
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#545

On Sunday, October 6, 2013 1:24:18 AM UTC-7, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 20:20:09 -0700, johannes falcone wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > why?
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't. There is a reason why PostgreSQL has been largely ignored by 
> 
> business community. Actually, there are several reasons:
> 
> 
> 
> - No hints
> 
> - Partitioning is a joke: no global indexes, optimizer problems.
> 
> - No built-in parallelism.
> 
> 
> 
> PostgreSQL is simply inadequate. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Mladen Gogala
> 
> The Oracle Whisperer
> 
> http://mgogala.byethost5.com

come now, how can postgresql run huge databases easily if its inadequate?

do pg users have more of an ideology of scaling vertically, having 2 big boxes

rather than federations of mysql read slaves that infest the lamp shops of los angeles?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517

Em sexta-feira, 16 de agosto de 2013 00h20min09s UTC-3, johannes falcone  escreveu:
> why?

I´ve worked for the biggest phone company in Brazil named Telefonica,for many banks and they all have very huge tables,but the same philosophy hints are just proibited,because code have to be reusable,and hints that are suitable for one query againts one table aren´t suitable for the same query,for the same database but in another context(different data selectivity).
Design well your database,normalize it ,use the right data types,use index right,and let the optimizer do the rest,HINST were made by Devil,for DBA´S to threat with bad programmers.
In the left 25 years I´ve worked Mainly with SQL Server and Oracle and ocasionally with DB2,but now I want to create my own system and thats why I need an open source one,I will probably use MariADB not because its beter than PostgreSql right now,but because the party at MariaDb seems to be more animated and probably in 5 years MariaDB will be more close to SQL SERVER(in terms of facility to use(the tools,the explainers,backup,replication,etc).
Performance is really the most important thing,but in time of small budgets easy of development must be also considered.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546

On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:39:34 AM UTC-8, Marcello Dias wrote:
> Em sexta-feira, 16 de agosto de 2013 00h20min09s UTC-3, johannes falcone  escreveu:
> 
> > why?
> 
> 
> 
> I´ve worked for the biggest phone company in Brazil named Telefonica,for many banks and they all have very huge tables,but the same philosophy hints are just proibited,because code have to be reusable,and hints that are suitable for one query againts one table aren´t suitable for the same query,for the same database but in another context(different data selectivity).
> 
> Design well your database,normalize it ,use the right data types,use index right,and let the optimizer do the rest,HINST were made by Devil,for DBA´S to threat with bad programmers.
> 
> In the left 25 years I´ve worked Mainly with SQL Server and Oracle and ocasionally with DB2,but now I want to create my own system and thats why I need an open source one,I will probably use MariADB not because its beter than PostgreSql right now,but because the party at MariaDb seems to be more animated and probably in 5 years MariaDB will be more close to SQL SERVER(in terms of facility to use(the tools,the explainers,backup,replication,etc).
> 
> Performance is really the most important thing,but in time of small budgets easy of development must be also considered.)

I have heard on usenet that if you know what you are doing hints are completely not needed , and are in fact a hack to help the sloppy?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#518

What I really hated in PostgreSql is that it infers in the way I name My fields
I like to use CamelCase and if i Do that I have to write everything using commas,that really annoying since it makes querys less readable and verbose.
So everybody uses _ like customer_id nick_name ,but every RDBMS have its own weirdness.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#520

On 29.11.2013 18:17, Marcello Dias wrote:
> What I really hated in PostgreSql is that it infers in the way I name
> My fields I like to use CamelCase

SQL standard mandates case insensitivity:

http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt

Section 5.2, Syntax Rules 10).

> and if i Do that I have to write
> everything using commas,

Die you mean "double quotes" instead of "commas"?  I don't see how 
commas would help with the case in SQL.  To get exact case handling you 
usually have to enclose identifiers in double quotes in SQL.

> that really annoying since it makes querys
> less readable and verbose. So everybody uses _ like customer_id
> nick_name ,but every RDBMS have its own weirdness.

SNAKE_CASE is pretty common for database entity names.  I'd just stick 
with the convention rather than having double quotes all over the place.

Kind regards

	robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#519

After two weeks of reading information on the Net and both some MYSQL and PostGresql i came to a conclusion that I´ll spent my time learning PostGreSql instead of Mariadb, Although none of Them are perfect(Even Oracle is not perfect and cust one eye of my face).
With all my respect for the people that don´t like Postgress,I´ve read much more clear arguments against MYSQL than I´ve read against Postgresql.
Postgresql seems not to optimize realy bad writing SQL code, such Oracle and SQL Server does,So it is better to right good SQL code.
Hints? I´really don´t need this kind of stuff.
"Postgresql Developers don´t hear users.",They´ve implemented materialized Views that were the First feature asked for postgresql community, They don´t have to implement what few users ask.
I don´t know what happens in other countries, but in Brazil I´ve found much more lazy and bad proggramers,that the users base of a language or a RDBMS is really not an indication if it is or not a good technology.
Of course I´ve seen some good projects die or take too long to have a new release because lack of money or enough users,but it doesn´t seems to be the case of Postgresql,although in this case MariaDb seems to have much more sponsors.
I expect to be taking the right decision. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#521

In article <95cef3a0-0fc2-48d6-8bf0-4c80374c09af@googlegroups.com>, Marcello Dias <marcellaodobrasil@gmail.com> wrote:
>After two weeks of reading information on the Net and both some MYSQL and P=
>ostGresql i came to a conclusion that I=B4ll spent my time learning PostGre=
>Sql instead of Mariadb, Although none of Them are perfect(Even Oracle is no=
>t perfect and cust one eye of my face).
>With all my respect for the people that don=B4t like Postgress,I=B4ve read =
>much more clear arguments against MYSQL than I=B4ve read against Postgresql=
>..
>Postgresql seems not to optimize realy bad writing SQL code, such Oracle an=
>d SQL Server does,So it is better to right good SQL code.
>Hints? I=B4really don=B4t need this kind of stuff.
>"Postgresql Developers don=B4t hear users.",They=B4ve implemented materiali=
>zed Views that were the First feature asked for postgresql community, They =
>don=B4t have to implement what few users ask.
>I don=B4t know what happens in other countries, but in Brazil I=B4ve found =
>much more lazy and bad proggramers,that the users base of a language or a R=
>DBMS is really not an indication if it is or not a good technology.
>Of course I=B4ve seen some good projects die or take too long to have a new=
> release because lack of money or enough users,but it doesn=B4t seems to be=
> the case of Postgresql,although in this case MariaDb seems to have much mo=
>re sponsors.
>I expect to be taking the right decision.=20

Postgres is a fine choice, especially for someone accustomed to Oracle.

Eric

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547

On Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:59:24 AM UTC-8, Marcello Dias wrote:
> After two weeks of reading information on the Net and both some MYSQL and PostGresql i came to a conclusion that I´ll spent my time learning PostGreSql instead of Mariadb, Although none of Them are perfect(Even Oracle is not perfect and cust one eye of my face).
> 
> With all my respect for the people that don´t like Postgress,I´ve read much more clear arguments against MYSQL than I´ve read against Postgresql.
> 
> Postgresql seems not to optimize realy bad writing SQL code, such Oracle and SQL Server does,So it is better to right good SQL code.
> 
> Hints? I´really don´t need this kind of stuff.
> 
> "Postgresql Developers don´t hear users.",They´ve implemented materialized Views that were the First feature asked for postgresql community, They don´t have to implement what few users ask.
> 
> I don´t know what happens in other countries, but in Brazil I´ve found much more lazy and bad proggramers,that the users base of a language or a RDBMS is really not an indication if it is or not a good technology.
> 
> Of course I´ve seen some good projects die or take too long to have a new release because lack of money or enough users,but it doesn´t seems to be the case of Postgresql,although in this case MariaDb seems to have much more sponsors.
> 
> I expect to be taking the right decision.

so you saw the light and switched to pg?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522

Em sexta-feira, 16 de agosto de 2013 00h20min09s UTC-3, johannes falcone  escreveu:
Yes,I skuold have said DOuble Quotes instead of commas,somethimes I trust too much in my 35 years old(without much speaking) English.
Thank you for your answer.

Marcello Dias

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561

On Friday, August 16, 2013 11:20:09 AM UTC+8, johannes falcone wrote:
> why?

Because Java sucks and Oracle owns both Java and MySQL. Therefore, MySQL sucks.

Acutally, it's up to you.
A. postgresql -> fuck up and restart the project.
B. mysql -> fuck up and apply some hints and leave the shitty project as is.
C. postgresql + postgresql-doc -> works very well.
D. mysql + mysql-doc -> works.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.databases.postgresql

csiph-web