Posts

The Postgres query planner is house of cards built upon the ever-shifting sand of our data. It has the utterly impossible mission of converting our ridiculous and inane requests into a logical series of fetch, filter, sort, join, and other instructions. Then the resulting steps must be ruthlessly efficient or the execution phase could very well saturate every hardware resource available; Set Theory isn’t very forgiving.

The United States held an election recently, and there has been some … mild controversy regarding the results. Many raised issues about this before the election itself, but what if we had used instant-runoff voting instead? More importantly, can we implement it with Postgres?

I know a lot of people watched the election results in disbelief last night, or woke up this morning and thought something like this:

There’s a bit of sad truth there. But the real problem is how we reached the point where this was even possible. The amount of incredulity on display here is actually quite shocking to anyone that was paying attention. I knew Trump had some small chance given the political environment in America right now, yet I never thought he could actually win. The reason behind that misapprehension should shock some sense into every single one of us.

Through the wonderful magic of corporate agreements, I’ve been pulled back into (hopefully temporarily) managing a small army of MySQL servers. No! Why can’t this just be a terrible nightmare?! Does anyone deserve such debasement?

Partitioning tables in Postgres can be an extremely risky endeavor. Unfortunately on many larger systems, it’s also essentially a requirement; the maximum size of a Postgres table is 32TB. This isn’t just because converting an existing table to a series of partitions is expensive or time consuming. We must consider how the query planner will react to the partitioned version of a table. There’s also the very real risk we will (or already have) implement flaws in the trigger or constraint logic.