hey all, I''m starting up a couple projects with rails and have decided to switch to switch to postgres from mysql. It feels older and more solid. Anyway, I''m also running debian sarge and 8.0 isn''t even in backports. I''m willing to compile from source, but only if people think 8.0 is really worth it. Anyone have opinions.. robby? :) _a -- alex black, founder the turing studio, inc. 510.666.0074 root-16h2cdTTKgpzNNFeSAH1EA@public.gmane.org http://www.turingstudio.com 2600 10th street, suite 635 berkeley, ca 94710
On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 13:08 -0800, alex black wrote:> hey all, > > I''m starting up a couple projects with rails and have decided to switch > to switch to postgres from mysql. It feels older and more solid. > > Anyway, I''m also running debian sarge and 8.0 isn''t even in backports. > I''m willing to compile from source, but only if people think 8.0 is > really worth it.Install from source... it''s easier to maintain in my opinion. I''d go with 8.x... think 8.0.4 is out now and 8.1 beta/alpha is out now too. :-) -Robby -- /****************************************************** * Robby Russell, Owner.Developer.Geek * PLANET ARGON, Open Source Solutions & Web Hosting * Portland, Oregon | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068 * www.planetargon.com | www.robbyonrails.com * Programming Rails | www.programmingrails.com *******************************************************/
I would go for 8.0.4. 8.1rc1 is out already, production release should be out in couple of weeks. -kevin On 11/5/05, Robby Russell <robby.lists-/Lcn8Y7Ot69QmPsQ1CNsNQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 13:08 -0800, alex black wrote: > > hey all, > > > > I''m starting up a couple projects with rails and have decided to switch > > to switch to postgres from mysql. It feels older and more solid. > > > > Anyway, I''m also running debian sarge and 8.0 isn''t even in backports. > > I''m willing to compile from source, but only if people think 8.0 is > > really worth it. > > Install from source... it''s easier to maintain in my opinion. > > I''d go with 8.x... think 8.0.4 is out now and 8.1 beta/alpha is out now > too. :-) > > -Robby > > -- > /****************************************************** > * Robby Russell, Owner.Developer.Geek > * PLANET ARGON, Open Source Solutions & Web Hosting > * Portland, Oregon | p: 503.351.4730 | f: 815.642.4068 > * www.planetargon.com <http://www.planetargon.com> | www.robbyonrails.com<http://www.robbyonrails.com> > * Programming Rails | www.programmingrails.com<http://www.programmingrails.com> > *******************************************************/ > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Yeah, go with 8.x and install from source if no package is available - it''s pretty easy. I''m just getting started with Rails - haven''t had any problems with PG 8.0x (which I''ve been using since it came out). PG 8.1 will be out real soon. CSN --- Robby Russell <robby.lists-/Lcn8Y7Ot69QmPsQ1CNsNQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 13:08 -0800, alex black wrote: > > hey all, > > > > I''m starting up a couple projects with rails and > have decided to switch > > to switch to postgres from mysql. It feels older > and more solid. > > > > Anyway, I''m also running debian sarge and 8.0 > isn''t even in backports. > > I''m willing to compile from source, but only if > people think 8.0 is > > really worth it. > > Install from source... it''s easier to maintain in my > opinion. > > I''d go with 8.x... think 8.0.4 is out now and 8.1 > beta/alpha is out now > too. :-) > > -Robby > > -- >/******************************************************> * Robby Russell, Owner.Developer.Geek > * PLANET ARGON, Open Source Solutions & Web Hosting > * Portland, Oregon | p: 503.351.4730 | f: > 815.642.4068 > * www.planetargon.com | www.robbyonrails.com > * Programming Rails | www.programmingrails.com >*******************************************************/> > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors'' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi alex, alex black wrote:> I''m starting up a couple projects with rails and have decided to switch > to switch to postgres from mysql. It feels older and more solid. > > Anyway, I''m also running debian sarge and 8.0 isn''t even in backports.I saw it on apt-get.org though ;-) -- Jean-Christophe Michel
As everyone else is saying, go with 8.0. In my experience, it works fine, and the added features make it a lot easier to administer in a production environment. I''ve used it with a couple of Rails apps (admittedly small and highly specialised) without any problems. Good luck Dave M. On 11/6/05, alex black <enigma-16h2cdTTKgpzNNFeSAH1EA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> hey all, > > I''m starting up a couple projects with rails and have decided to switch > to switch to postgres from mysql. It feels older and more solid. > > Anyway, I''m also running debian sarge and 8.0 isn''t even in backports. > I''m willing to compile from source, but only if people think 8.0 is > really worth it. > > Anyone have opinions.. robby? > > :) > > _a > > > -- > alex black, founder > the turing studio, inc. > > 510.666.0074 > root-16h2cdTTKgpzNNFeSAH1EA@public.gmane.org > http://www.turingstudio.com > > 2600 10th street, suite 635 > berkeley, ca 94710 > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 11:51 +1100, David Mitchell wrote:> As everyone else is saying, go with 8.0. > > In my experience, it works fine, and the added features make it a lot > easier to administer in a production environment. > > I''ve used it with a couple of Rails apps (admittedly small and highly > specialised) without any problems.Same here, 8.0.4 is working quite well. Just be sure to run "vacuumdb --full --analyze --all" nightly to keep things snappy... Yours, Tom
>Same here, 8.0.4 is working quite well. Just be sure to run "vacuumdb >--full --analyze --all" nightly to keep things snappy... > >With autovacuum, you may not need this at all. Additionally, vacuum full may or may not be a good idea, depending on the nature of your changes. If you have a one time, big data update or delete, vacuum full is your friend, as it frees up all of the unused space, however, if you have normal, regular updates, deletes, and inserts, the free space gets reused, and it is faster than allocating new space. If you find your space usage growing over time faster than your actual data is growing, you need an occasional vacuum full, but usually regular vacuum is better. Also remember that while vacuum full is running, you cannot access your tables because they have table locks on them, unlike regular vacuum which cleans up stale rows without a lock. Analyze is your friend any time you have made statistically significant data changes, but otherwise may be just a waste of cycles. More tips: Reindex can be good, especially if you have indexed fields which have ever ascending values that will cause the trees to get off balance. It will reclaim space and make indexes faster, but it can cause the index to not be used while it is being rebuilt, so be careful about when to use it. If you are having insert/update performance issues, move your xlog and clog to separate spindles from your index and data files. Select performance can be helped with indexing fields in your where clauses. Look for opportunities to do partial indexes. They will save space and run faster than full indexes if you only look at a small part of the table most of the time anyway. Remember that unless a condition will reduce the number of rows by at least half, an index will not help.
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 10:37 -0500, Grant Johnson wrote:> >Same here, 8.0.4 is working quite well. Just be sure to run "vacuumdb > >--full --analyze --all" nightly to keep things snappy... > > > > > With autovacuum, you may not need this at all. Additionally, vacuum > full may or may not be a good idea, depending on the nature of your > changes. If you have a one time, big data update or delete, vacuum > full is your friend, as it frees up all of the unused space, however, if > you have normal, regular updates, deletes, and inserts, the free space > gets reused, and it is faster than allocating new space. If you find > your space usage growing over time faster than your actual data is > growing, you need an occasional vacuum full, but usually regular vacuum > is better. Also remember that while vacuum full is running, you cannot > access your tables because they have table locks on them, unlike regular > vacuum which cleans up stale rows without a lock.Excellent, thanks for posting. That was all new stuff to me, thanks for the info.> Reindex can be good, especially if you have indexed fields which have > ever ascending values that will cause the trees to get off balance. It > will reclaim space and make indexes faster, but it can cause the index > to not be used while it is being rebuilt, so be careful about when to > use it.Cool, this is the first I''ve heard of this command. Seems to run pretty quickly, too; at least, on RubyForge''s 100+ tables and 3.5M+ records it ran in about 3 seconds. Thanks, Tom
>Cool, this is the first I''ve heard of this command. Seems to run pretty >quickly, too; at least, on RubyForge''s 100+ tables and 3.5M+ records it >ran in about 3 seconds. > > >That sounds a little too quick. You may have only reindexed your system tables, and not your data tables. REINDEX DATABASE redoes the system tables, not the data tables. If you do not use the contrib/reindexall, you need to specify which tables to reindex. If it did run that fast, that is great. It just would surprise me. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/sql-reindex.html
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 12:26 -0500, Grant Johnson wrote:> >Cool, this is the first I''ve heard of this command. Seems to run pretty > >quickly, too; at least, on RubyForge''s 100+ tables and 3.5M+ records it > >ran in about 3 seconds. > > > > > > > That sounds a little too quick. You may have only reindexed your > system tables, and not your data tables. REINDEX DATABASE redoes the > system tables, not the data tables. If you do not use the > contrib/reindexall, you need to specify which tables to reindex. If it > did run that fast, that is great. It just would surprise me. > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/sql-reindex.htmlYup, you were right - I was just getting the system tables. Reindexing everything took about 30 seconds: ===============require ''rubygems'' require ''postgres-pr/connection'' c = PostgresPR::Connection.new("name", "user") tsql = "SELECT tablename FROM pg_tables WHERE tableowner=''gforge''" c.query(tsql).rows.sort.each {|r| idx_sql = "REINDEX table #{r[0].strip}" puts "Reindexing #{r[0].strip}" c.query(idx_sql) } c.close =============== Thanks again for the info, Yours, Tom
On 5-nov-2005, at 22:08, alex black wrote:> hey all, > > I''m starting up a couple projects with rails and have decided to > switch to switch to postgres from mysql. It feels older and more > solid. > > Anyway, I''m also running debian sarge and 8.0 isn''t even in > backports. I''m willing to compile from source, but only if people > think 8.0 is really worth it. > > Anyone have opinions.. robby?I love 8.0, in the first place because Unicode works much better (7.x did not have Unicode case conversions and normalizations) -- Julian "Julik" Tarkhanov
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Nov 8, 2005, at 8:27 AM, Julian ''Julik'' Tarkhanov wrote:> On 5-nov-2005, at 22:08, alex black wrote: >> hey all, >> >> I''m starting up a couple projects with rails and have decided to >> switch to switch to postgres from mysql. It feels older and more >> solid. >> >> Anyway, I''m also running debian sarge and 8.0 isn''t even in >> backports. I''m willing to compile from source, but only if people >> think 8.0 is really worth it. >> >> Anyone have opinions.. robby? > > I love 8.0, in the first place because Unicode works much better > (7.x did not have Unicode case conversions and normalizations)8.1 is released and is quite a bit nicer than 8.0 run, don''t walk.. jeremy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDcP/AAQHALep9HFYRAjC9AKCMJM1sM5mjpU2AoobD/euJ34Dg8ACeJ5u5 88Z0TO8cKpVayJ17xS0dYPU=gwpZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----