Horton
Menu

Thread

  1. Blog post on EnterpriseDB...maybe off topic

    Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> — 2006-02-16T07:14:41Z

    http://www.flamingspork.com/blog/2006/02/16/enterprisedb-where-is-the-source/

Any comments on this?  Is he referring to EnterpriseDB extensions that 
they don't make public?

Chris

  2. Re: Blog post on EnterpriseDB...maybe off topic

    Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith@pooteeweet.org> — 2006-02-16T07:23:16Z

    Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> http://www.flamingspork.com/blog/2006/02/16/enterprisedb-where-is-the-source/ 
> 
> 
> Any comments on this?  Is he referring to EnterpriseDB extensions that 
> they don't make public?

I think so. Trying to "battle" the perception that EnterpriseDB is an 
open source database. Seems though that little effort is made to 
understand the actual relationship between EnterpriseDB and PostGreSQL.

Looks like an attempt at pitting "dual license GPL/closed source" vs. 
"proprietary BSD based".

regards,
Lukas

  3. Re: Blog post on EnterpriseDB...maybe off topic

    llonergan@greenplum.com — 2006-02-16T09:54:51Z

    Christoper,

On 2/15/06 11:14 PM, "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
wrote:

> Any comments on this?  Is he referring to EnterpriseDB extensions that
> they don't make public?

I've noticed a lot of press lately is mentioning their name next to ingres
as an alternative to MySQL, so the MySQL folks might be feeling some
Postgres heat from their direction.

I also wonder where their project is too - they seem publicly opaque about
progress, etc.  From the web site's statements it looks like they've written
a tool to tune the postgresql.conf file from which they claim a 50%
speed-up, but that's not new or unique "fork-level" functionality.

- Luke

  4. Re: Blog post on EnterpriseDB...maybe off topic

    Rick Gigger <rick@alpinenetworking.com> — 2006-02-16T09:58:47Z

    >> Any comments on this?  Is he referring to EnterpriseDB extensions  
>> that
>> they don't make public?
>
> I've noticed a lot of press lately is mentioning their name next to  
> ingres
> as an alternative to MySQL, so the MySQL folks might be feeling some
> Postgres heat from their direction.
>
> I also wonder where their project is too - they seem publicly  
> opaque about
> progress, etc.  From the web site's statements it looks like  
> they've written
> a tool to tune the postgresql.conf file from which they claim a 50%
> speed-up, but that's not new or unique "fork-level" functionality.

What they don't say is whether that is a 50% speed up from the  
default settings or a 50% increase from a carefully hand tunes file.

  5. Re: Blog post on EnterpriseDB...maybe off topic

    Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2006-02-18T15:15:15Z

    >
> I also wonder where their project is too - they seem publicly opaque about
> progress, etc.  From the web site's statements it looks like they've written
> a tool to tune the postgresql.conf file from which they claim a 50%
> speed-up, but that's not new or unique "fork-level" functionality.
>
>   

EnterpriseDB is a fork of PostgreSQL that contains a reasonable level of 
pl/SQL (Oracle) compatibility.
My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that they support packages, 
in, inout paramters etc.. in
the same syntactical way that Oracle does.

Joshua D. Drake


> - Luke
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>

  6. Re: Blog post on EnterpriseDB...maybe off topic

    llonergan@greenplum.com — 2006-02-18T15:38:59Z

    Josh,

On 2/18/06 7:15 AM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> EnterpriseDB is a fork of PostgreSQL that contains a reasonable level of
> pl/SQL (Oracle) compatibility.
> My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that they support packages,
> in, inout paramters etc.. in
> the same syntactical way that Oracle does.

Thanks!

I figure they'll have to do quite a lot to make progress in their chosen
market, including:

- SQL*Net protocol compatibility
- Oracle Number datatype support
- ROWID unique row identifier
- Oracle Redo/Undo log format parsing and replay
- SQL Loader format support
- Oracle exp/imp format support

The broader Oracle enterprise market is used to a high level of integration
of Oracle instances across the enterprise, and their DBAs are highly trained
to use these features.

- Luke

  7. Re: Blog post on EnterpriseDB...maybe off topic

    llonergan@greenplum.com — 2006-02-18T15:41:07Z

    Josh,

On 2/18/06 7:38 AM, "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com> wrote:

> I figure they'll have to do quite a lot to make progress in their chosen
> market, including:
> 
> - SQL*Net protocol compatibility
> - Oracle Number datatype support
> - ROWID unique row identifier
> - Oracle Redo/Undo log format parsing and replay
> - SQL Loader format support
> - Oracle exp/imp format support

I forgot one:
- Make sort ordering equivalent to Oracle (trailing blanks don't count, for
instance)

- Luke

  8. Re: Blog post on EnterpriseDB...maybe off topic

    Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> — 2006-02-24T22:00:26Z

    Folks,

> What they don't say is whether that is a 50% speed up from the
> default settings or a 50% increase from a carefully hand tunes file.

AFAIT, most of their performance speed-up comes from two sources:
1) a carefully hand-tuned compile of Postgres using ICC, and
2) Improving on the default postgres.conf params.

BTW, they have set up 3 pgfoundry projects to contribute some-but-not-all 
of their improvements to the community, and have actively sought feedback 
from me, Bruce, Simon and others on how and what to contribute.  They also 
paid for Alvaro's work on shared locks.

So if that code has been slow in coming, that's due to their staff being 
overcommitted (it's a start-up).

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco