Re: Big disappointment with Postgres
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 19:28:09 +0000 (UTC)
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 05:09:07 -0800, prunoki wrote:
> On Feb 6, 6:55 am, Noons <wizofo..._at_yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> Mladen Gogala wrote,on my timestamp of 6/02/2011 9:13 AM: >> >> > On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 23:38:08 +1100, Noons wrote: >> >> >> Beg your pardon? So, a hint that fixes a plan "introduces upgrade >> >> and maintenance issues", but a patch to fix a specific problem with >> >> the optimizer does not introduce such? >> >> Hellooooooo? >> >> > I posted that here because Postgres has recently been advertised as >> > an alternative to Oracle. It's nothing of the kind and the people >> > ogling it should be aware of that. It was foolish of me to expect >> > otherwise. It was an off topic post which otherwise doesn't belong on >> > this group, but that was the reason for me to put it here. >> >> It's good to have this sort of thing exposed. These morons rely too >> much on their little forums where everyone jumps the same way when the >> whistle sounds. They need to be shown clearly that they are a vast >> minority, unlike what their cozy little corners lead them to believe.
> Hmmm, not giving me the tools to let me solve my own problems in the way
> I want seems like a bad idea. And yes, migration projects can be
> extremely tricky that way. There is time for evil and dirty to make it
> work and there is time to remove them later.
There are two excellent papers here:
Both were written by Dan Tow, a long term DBA who has my utmost respect.
The papers pre-date this debate for several years and present a very
coherent argument in support of hints.
They do not cover the psychological side of things. Telling users that PostgreSQL creators consider them dumber than a computer program is simply not a good idea if PostgreSQL is supposed to be an alternative to Oracle. It isn't. I am glad that we've ironed that out.