PostgreSQL: No More Vacuum, No More Bloat
Experimental format to help readability of a long rant:<p>1.<p>According to the OP, there&#x27;s a &quot;terrifying tale of VACUUM in PostgreSQL,&quot; dating back to &quot;a historical artifact that traces its roots back to the Berkeley Postgres project.&quot; (1986?)<p>2.<p>Maybe the whole idea of &quot;use X, it has been battle-tested for [TIME], is robust, all the bugs have been and keep being fixed,&quot; etc., should not really be that attractive or realistic for at least a large subset of projects.<p>3.<p>In the case of Postgres, on top of piles of &quot;historic code&quot; and cruft, there&#x27;s the fact that each user of Postgres installs and runs a huge software artifact with hundreds or even thousands of features and dependencies, of which every particular user may only use a tiny subset.<p>4.<p>In Kleppmann&#x27;s DDOA [1], after explaining why the declarative SQL language is &quot;better,&quot; he writes: &quot;in databases, declarative query languages like SQL turned out to be much better than imperative query APIs.&quot; I find this footnote to the paragraph a bit ironic: &quot;IMS and CODASYL both used imperative query APIs. Applications typically used COBOL code to iterate over records in the database, one record at a time.&quot; So, SQL was better than CODASYL and COBOL in a number of ways... big surprise?<p>Postgres&#x27; own PL&#x2F;pgSQL [2] is a language that (I imagine) most people would rather NOT use: hence a bunch of alternatives, including PL&#x2F;v8, on its own a huge mass of additional complexity. SQL is definitely &quot;COBOLESQUE&quot; itself.<p>5.<p>Could we come up with something more minimal than SQL and looking less like COBOL? (Hopefully also getting rid of ORMs in the process). Also, I have found inspiring to see some people creating databases for themselves. Perhaps not a bad idea for small applications? For instance, I found BuntDB [3], which the developer seems to be using to run his own business [4]. Also, HYTRADBOI? :-) [5].<p>6.<p>A usual objection to use anything other than a stablished relational DB is &quot;creating a database is too difficult for the average programmer.&quot; How about debugging PostgreSQL issues, developing new storage engines for it, or even building expertise on how to set up the instances properly and keep it alive and performant? Is that easier?<p>I personally feel more capable of implementing a small, well-tested, problem-specific, small implementation of a B-Tree than learning how to develop Postgres extensions, become an expert in its configuration and internals, or debug its many issues.<p>Another common opinion is &quot;SQL is easy to use for non-programmers.&quot; But every person that knows SQL had to learn it somehow. I&#x27;m 100% confident that anyone able to learn SQL should be able to learn a simple, domain-specific, programming language designed for querying DBs. And how many of these people that are not able to program imperatively would be able to read a SQL EXPLAIN output and fix deficient queries? If they can, that supports even more the idea that they should be able to learn something different than SQL.<p>----<p>1: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;dataintensive.net&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;dataintensive.net&#x2F;</a><p>2: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.postgresql.org&#x2F;docs&#x2F;7.3&#x2F;plpgsql-examples.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.postgresql.org&#x2F;docs&#x2F;7.3&#x2F;plpgsql-examples.html</a><p>3: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;tidwall&#x2F;buntdb">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;tidwall&#x2F;buntdb</a><p>4: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tile38.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tile38.com&#x2F;</a><p>5: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.hytradboi.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.hytradboi.com&#x2F;</a>