Thread: Please check text of community announcement ASAP
Folks, I'll be sending this out in one hour, so please check for awful gaffs: ======================================== After eight months of development and five months of integration and testing, the PostgreSQL Global Development Group now announces the availability of PostgreSQL version 8.2 (our 14th public release). Among the features of this new version are: -- Average 20% overall performance improvement -- Warm standby databases -- Online index builds -- SQL2003 aggregates -- Improved TSearch2 with Generalized Inverted Indexes -- Support for DTrace probes -- Advisory Locks -- New ISN/ISBN and pgCrypto modules -- Selective pg_dump options ... and many more included in the over 300 patches which went into this version. For highlights of the release, please see the press kit: http://www.postgresql.org/about/press/presskit82.html.en Downloads: Source: http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/v8.2/ Windows Binaries: http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/v8.2.0/win32/ Red Hat RPMs: http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/v8.2.0/linux/rpms/ Packages and ports for OSX, Solaris, Ubuntu, Debian, SuSE and other operating systems will be available in the weeks and months to come, either from postgresql.org or from the platform vendor. Version 8.2 will be announced and discussed at the LISA conference in Washington DC, at the PostgreSQL booth and BOF: http://www.usenix.org/events/lisa06/
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 13:42 -0500, Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks, > > I'll be sending this out in one hour, so please check for awful gaffs: > > ======================================== > After eight months of development and five months of integration and > testing, the PostgreSQL Global Development Group now announces the > availability of PostgreSQL version 8.2 (our 14th public release). > > Among the features of this new version are: > -- Average 20% overall performance improvement > -- Warm standby databases > -- Online index builds I still think that Online index builds sounds wierd. Non blocking? Non-locking? etc... but it isn't a huge problem. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > -- SQL2003 aggregates > -- Improved TSearch2 with Generalized Inverted Indexes > -- Support for DTrace probes > -- Advisory Locks > -- New ISN/ISBN and pgCrypto modules > -- Selective pg_dump options > > ... and many more included in the over 300 patches which went into this > version. > > For highlights of the release, please see the press kit: > http://www.postgresql.org/about/press/presskit82.html.en > > Downloads: > Source: http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/source/v8.2/ > Windows Binaries: http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/v8.2.0/win32/ > Red Hat RPMs: http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/v8.2.0/linux/rpms/ > > Packages and ports for OSX, Solaris, Ubuntu, Debian, SuSE and other > operating systems will be available in the weeks and months to come, > either from postgresql.org or from the platform vendor. > > Version 8.2 will be announced and discussed at the LISA conference in > Washington DC, at the PostgreSQL booth and BOF: > http://www.usenix.org/events/lisa06/ > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Among the features of this new version are:
> -- Average 20% overall performance improvement
Hmm, do we have any numbers backing that up? Some things improved much
more than that, some not at all, so I'm kinda wondering where "20% overall"
came from. If you're basing that on one specific benchmark you oughta
say which one.
> -- Warm standby databases
I think we could do that already, it just didn't work as smoothly.
Maybe "Better support for warm standby databases" would be better.
The rest of it seems OK to me.
regards, tom lane
Tom, >> -- Average 20% overall performance improvement > > Hmm, do we have any numbers backing that up? Some things improved much > more than that, some not at all, so I'm kinda wondering where "20% overall" > came from. If you're basing that on one specific benchmark you oughta > say which one. TPCC scores, according to Unisys, and the Tweakers.net benchmark. The actual press release is more specific. The idea was for the community announcement to be brief. So: Higher performance (+20% in OLTP benchmarks) > >> -- Warm standby databases > > I think we could do that already, it just didn't work as smoothly. > Maybe "Better support for warm standby databases" would be better. Ok, "improved" --Josh
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 14:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > Among the features of this new version are:
> > -- Average 20% overall performance improvement
>
> Hmm, do we have any numbers backing that up? Some things improved much
> more than that, some not at all, so I'm kinda wondering where "20% overall"
> came from. If you're basing that on one specific benchmark you oughta
> say which one.
I have pgbench marks that reflect that...
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Attachment
Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, > >>> -- Average 20% overall performance improvement >> >> Hmm, do we have any numbers backing that up? Some things improved much >> more than that, some not at all, so I'm kinda wondering where "20% >> overall" >> came from. If you're basing that on one specific benchmark you oughta >> say which one. > > TPCC scores, according to Unisys, and the Tweakers.net benchmark. The > actual press release is more specific. The idea was for the community > announcement to be brief. > > So: > Higher performance (+20% in OLTP benchmarks) Do we actually know what Tweakers are doing? Their graphs and articles seem very good n'all, but the best I've been able to ascertain is that it's some in-house benchmark based on their own (99% read only?) website. Not that that's a bad thing, just not exactly OLTP... Regards, Dave.
Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> writes: > Josh Berkus wrote: >> Higher performance (+20% in OLTP benchmarks) > Do we actually know what Tweakers are doing? Their graphs and articles > seem very good n'all, but the best I've been able to ascertain is that > it's some in-house benchmark based on their own (99% read only?) > website. Not that that's a bad thing, just not exactly OLTP... Another problem is that the Tweakers result Josh is quoting is based on "8.2devel", which turns out to mean a CVS pull from 3-Jun-2006, which is quite a bit different from 8.2 final --- and Arjen says 8.2 final looks a lot worse: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-12/msg00041.php I've been discussing this with him off-list and trying to figure out why such a drop, but no answers yet. I'm pretty hesitant to wave that Tweakers article around until we know what's going on here. If we have other benchmarks we can point to that justify the "20%" number, then it's OK to use ... regards, tom lane
Tom, Dave, I do actually have information about the Tweakers workload, which I'll be posting on my blog later. Anyway, the original 20% number came from Doug at Unisys in TPCC testing. I'm actually searching the archives so that I can quote him .... --Josh