I think it will be straightforward to expose time_bucket in pg_duckdb. Feel free to open an issue for the feature.
187 karma · joined May 4, 2010
As the linked post points out, the main 'advantage' of the "tuned" benchmark is the indexes, which are tuned specifically to the queries in the benchmark. We do not use indexes in our version of the benchmark, aside from the primary key (which actually provides no performance advantage).
We only support apt for now but plan to support other package managers in the future. It works with existing Postgres apt packages, we recommend using PGDG but the default system packages on Debian/Ubuntu work as well.
> Does it work with the postgres Docker image?
yes, in fact this how our `container` feature works. https://docs.pgxman.com/container
On Ubuntu/Debian, Postgres doesn't typically work this way, so it's not the way that pgxman works. pgxman works on top of the existing `postgresql` packages and with the existing package manager (apt) in order to install extensions -- which is also how it handles runtime dependencies, whether libraries or even other extensions.
So, that said, we have a container feature I could see using to effectively isolate for a single project. Right now there is only one single "global" container (per Postgres version) that pgxman will manage for you, but this is just a MVP of this feature. I could definitely see something like `pgxman c dev` or similar which will read a local pgxman pack file (pgxman.yaml) in your project and boot a "local" Postgres for you just for that project.
The pgxman pack is already a thing and is how the local container config is maintained, but we haven't tied it together in the way described above... yet. For more on both pgxman pack and the container feature, check out our docs.
- Installing the extension itself does not change the default table type, this is only the case on Hydra Cloud and our Docker image.
- "Hydra is not a fork" refers to the fact that Hydra did not fork Postgres; it is an extension. We have put in a lot of effort since forking Citus, but it's not our intent to hide that fact.
- Yes, "Hydra External Tables" is a productization around FDWs, there's more we want to do with it but it hasn't been our focus lately.
Columnar is not ideal for a `users` table where you want to select and update specific rows, often in very small, quick transactions (OLTP). You would want to continue to use a traditional (heap) table in that case. That's certainly something you can still do with Hydra, and combining both kinds of tables is considered HTAP, and something that is a unique use case of our product.
To contrast, columnar is best for "fact" tables -- data about something that happened (thus it does not change) that will be analyzed in an aggregate way. Those might be logs, events, transactions, etc.
Redshift is multi-node, which puts it in a different category -- with considerably higher costs.
[1]: https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickBench/blob/main/greenplum...
Definitely stay tuned [0] for Clickhouse! And yes, exactly, you can continue to use your ORM of choice.
0: social links are at the bottom of hydras.io :)
Our "no lock-in" claim refers to your data, since Hydra is Postgres, you're not stuck using "HydraDB" forever -- it's relatively easy to migrate in or out since you can use well established Postgres tools. We also are open to licensing the product should you wish to self-host, on-prem, etc.
Today, queries need to be Postgres-compatible to be intelligently routed, but queries with specific query syntax or functions beyond Postgres can be routed with our manual router[1]. This is our first solution to this problem and plan to iterate in response to customer pain.
Sorry for the confusion! Data moves asynchronously -- we're not trying to implement multi-phase commits -- but we can act on data very quickly once committed. Our solution here uses Postgres logical replication. Using the Data Bridge is optional and a customer's existing solutions are welcome as well.
[1]: https://hydras-io.notion.site/Router-a91f5282f1354c54a9ba894...
You can use our manual router[1] to route queries that use a specific syntax or functions. The way this works today is you wrap your query in an SQL function. In the future, we could detect use of a specific features and route those queries appropriately. I think there might be other ways to solve this as well e.g. by having a 'stub' aggregate function in Postgres for the function you want to call. We are working with customers to iterate on issues like this as they occur.
[1]: see "Manual Routing" at https://hydras-io.notion.site/Router-a91f5282f1354c54a9ba894...
We are really excited about the prospect of bringing SQL and NoSQL together!
We will definitely think about S3 support! Would love to understand those use cases more and how Hydra could help.
Hydra does not use FDWs except for Postgres-to-Postgres communication (for now). What we found was that FDWs do not do pushdown very well, even when Postgres has full information. You can get FDWs to push down aggregations, but complex queries with subqueries etc quickly get slow again. In short, our goal is to have your queries take full advantage of the power of each datastores, and we found that FDWs do not accomplish that goal.
We want to support GraphQL at some point, so same goes for us!
We are thinking about an OSS version, I think how we do "limited" is a big part of what that means. What would you like to see in an OSS version? What would you use it for?
1. I haven't seen any significant changes to their product, except for the CLI tool as a replacement for capistrano. The CLI tool is a great improvement, but it's still basically a glorified capistrano tool, and doesn't even get close to comparing to the Heroku command-line tool. Predominately, I feel like the product has been stagnant. Support for Ruby 1.9 and Rubinius (currently in beta) is the most exciting thing I've seen lately. It's surprising rbx has taken so long when it's an EY sponsored project!
Part of the challenge with a product like AppCloud is there is no obvious way to update the stack without disturbing applications, but I'd still have liked a way to potentially update our base software (libraries and such) to something more current.
2. I'm so-so on this. Heroku support is free, but is not 24/7 unless you are a very large customer with a support contract. We paid for support, and EY support was sometimes helpful, sometimes not.
3. I'm not talking about objective comparisons here, these are "shots across the bow" so to speak. I know the pros and cons of both services very well, but what I am talking about are "subtle jabs" about how Heroku is not production-ready/capable, etc.
While there may be amazing things in the works, it also seems to take a long time for features to be rolled out, and often these are in betas initially which do not fall under the support contracts. So if we wanted to move to Ruby 1.9, it's at our own risk (or was, last time I looked).
As for the jabs at Heroku, I have seen quite a few, honestly, but I don't have a pile of links for you. Many of them are subtle or implied, and not necessarily untrue. For instance, sure, Heroku was acquired by Salesforce, but I haven't seen any indication as to why that should influence my hosting decision. Companies are bought and sold all the time. The "ey-migrate" tool was also a great time to get a few subtle jabs in.
It's also increasingly annoying to see shots taken at Heroku in their blog posts and on Twitter. It's unprofessional. Compete on features and services, please.