As a database, Postgres (PostgreSQL) is fairly standard in its use of SQL. Developers of all colors however, might have trouble switching gears and thinking in set operations, since so many language constructs focus on conditionals and looping. Last week in the performance pitfalls series, we discussed a bit of Set Theory, and how ignorance of its implications can be disastrous. But what about the more mundane?

Well, I’ve returned from PGCon 2015 in Canada, and after a couple days to decompress, it’s time to share. I wrote about the PGCon 2014 unconference after returning to Chicago last year, so I felt it was only fitting that I start there. I feel as strongly now as I did a year ago, that directly interacting with the PostgreSQL maintainers at this level helps the community thrive. Even though PGCon is generally a more developer-focused conference, being able to brainstorm with the bigwigs, even if nothing comes of it, means the ideas have been given a fair shake.

Functions are great. Having cut my teeth on a database that didn’t even provide the ability to define functions, I’ve come to almost take them for granted in Postgres (PostgreSQL). However, with this kind of ubiquity, sometimes they can be overused in ways that don’t seem to be part of the common programmer lexicon. In this week’s PG Phriday series on performance-killing missteps, I’m going to talk a bit about set theory, and how a certain amount of familiarity is necessary to properly interact with a database.

There are a lot of database engines out there. As such, a developer or DBA will naturally have varying levels of experience with each, and some of this might conflict with how Postgres (PostgreSQL) operates. These kinds of embedded misunderstandings can cause potential issues by themselves, but in this particular case, corrective action is fairly simple.

I recently got the opportunity to take a look at Learning Heroku Postgres, a new book by Patrick Espake that seems intended to help new PostgreSQL database administrators get their data into the cloud. The chapters are short, concise, and the questionnaires at the end are a nice touch. But does it hit the mark? Almost.