标签：#base

The honest decision framework, not another flame war. The SQL vs NoSQL debate has been running for 15 years and it still generates more heat than light. Here's the framework that actually helps you decide. The Real Question It's not "SQL or NoSQL." It's: what does your access pattern look like? If your application is mostly reading and writing related data through well-defined queries — orders with line items, users with addresses, products with categories — relational databases are purpose-built for this. JOINs are not expensive when they're indexed. Transactions are not slow when they're scoped correctly. PostgreSQL handles 50 million rows comfortably on a single node. If your application is reading and writing self-contained documents with predictable access by a primary key, and you rarely need cross-document queries — user profiles, product catalogs, content management — a document database simplifies your code. No ORM mapping hell. No migration files for adding a field. If your application writes massive volumes and reads by partition key with eventual consistency — time-series data, IoT telemetry, activity feeds at scale — wide-column stores like Cassandra were built for this specific workload. The 2026 Reality PostgreSQL has eaten NoSQL's lunch in many areas. JSONB support means you can store and query unstructured data inside PostgreSQL with GIN indexes. You get the document model flexibility without giving up transactions, JOINs, and a 30-year ecosystem. For 80% of startups and mid-size companies, PostgreSQL is the only database you need. MongoDB has gotten more relational. Multi-document ACID transactions (since 4.0), schema validation, aggregation pipelines that look suspiciously like SQL. It's converging toward what PostgreSQL already does, but with a different starting point. DynamoDB dominates serverless. If you're in AWS and your access pattern is simple key-value with known query patterns, DynamoDB's pricing model (pay-per-request) and operational s

Inspired by a similar project called GenosDB and Cloudflare’s initiative to rebuild Next.js, I decided to rebuild GunDB with a modern coding style, incorporating improvements and addressing shortcomings in the original technology. I used the OpenCode tool with the Big Pickle model to rewrite the project in a new graph database called Garfo (the Portuguese word for “fork”), and I was impressed with the results and its practical applications. In this article, I’ll explain the technology and its improvements over GunDB. Introduction Garfo is a modern, browser-first fork of GUN.js — the decentralized, offline-first graph database. A fork of the original project that keeps the familiar GUN graph API while bringing meaningful improvements to the modern JavaScript ecosystem. Why a Fork? GUN.js is a revolutionary technology — a graph database that syncs in real time, works peer-to-peer, resolves conflicts automatically, and runs in the browser. However, the JavaScript ecosystem has evolved. TypeScript has become the standard, ES modules are the norm, and new transport layers like Nostr have emerged as promising decentralized protocols. Garfo was born to fill these gaps: a GUN rewritten with modern typing, designed with the browser as a first-class citizen, and with native support for the Nostr protocol. Key Features Familiar Graph API If you've used GUN before, you'll feel right at home. Garfo exposes the same chainable API: import Garfo from ' garfo ' ; const db = new Garfo ({ localStorage : true }); db . get ( ' users ' ). get ( ' alice ' ). put ({ name : ' Alice ' , status : ' online ' }); db . get ( ' users ' ). get ( ' alice ' ). on ( profile => { console . log ( ' Update: ' , profile ); }); All the classic methods are there: get() , put() , set() , on() , once() , map() . Optional Nostr Transport This is one of the most exciting additions. Garfo can use Nostr relays as a transport layer, allowing peers to exchange graph messages through public or private relays: const

Happy to announce HeliosProxy !! Far beyond a pooling tool, HeliosProxy ** is a next-gen programmable Postgres data-plane. **Works with PostgreSQL-compatible databases , not only HeliosDB. It starts as a PgBouncer-compatible wedge, then adds the operational surface teams usually build from multiple tools: connection pooling failover and transaction replay shadow execution anomaly detection edge cache controls admin REST API embedded admin UI signed WASM plugins OCI-style plugin artifacts Kubernetes operator Terraform and Pulumi providers 22 installable Claude/Codex operator skills Install operator skills: heliosdb-proxy install skills PostgreSQL #DevOps #SRE #Database #AIcoding

Event sourcing gets sold on immutability. You don't update, you don't delete, you only append, so the history is permanent. It mostly isn't. The events are immutable because your code agrees not to touch them, not because anything actually stops it. Underneath they're still rows in Postgres, and rows have a DBA with write access. A migration that "cleans up" old data. A 2 a.m. query run against the wrong connection. A backup restored with slightly different bytes in it. Change one of those rows and a replay won't blink. The aggregate rebuilds, the projections rebuild, everything looks fine. Usually the first person to notice is a customer whose balance is off, and by then the trail is cold. Chain each event into the next The trick is small. Give every row two extra columns: a hash of its contents, and the hash of the row before it. #1 AccountOpened prev=00000… hash=70be4f… │ ▼ #2 AmountDeposited prev=70be4f… hash=796018… │ ▼ #3 AmountWithdrawn prev=796018… hash=6a0260… The hash is SHA-256(previousHash || json(payload)) . Nothing exotic. The point is that each hash depends on the one before it. Edit a payload and its hash stops matching. Rewrite that hash to cover for the edit, and now the next row's pointer is wrong. You can't fix one without breaking the next. About forty lines of it Appending an event hashes it together with the previous one: public HashChainedEntry Append ( object payload ) { var previousHash = _entries . Count == 0 ? GenesisHash : _entries [^ 1 ]. Hash ; var hash = ComputeHash ( previousHash , payload ); var entry = new HashChainedEntry ( _entries . Count + 1 , payload , previousHash , hash ); _entries . Add ( entry ); return entry ; } internal static byte [] ComputeHash ( byte [] previousHash , object payload ) { var payloadJson = JsonSerializer . SerializeToUtf8Bytes ( payload , payload . GetType ()); var combined = new byte [ previousHash . Length + payloadJson . Length ]; Buffer . BlockCopy ( previousHash , 0 , combined , 0 , previousHash .

Si vous utilisez PostgreSQL, vous avez probablement déjà dû choisir entre une clé primaire BIGSERIAL et un UUID. Depuis des années, la version 4 (aléatoire) est le choix par défaut quand on veut un identifiant unique et distribué. Mais en 2026, une alternative plus récente s’impose : UUID v7, qui intègre un timestamp et promet de meilleures performances pour les index. Dans cet article, je vous explique concrètement ce qui change, avec des benchmarks PostgreSQL et des exemples de code, pour que vous puissiez décider en connaissance de cause. UUID v4 : le standard aléatoire et son problème d’index Un UUID v4 est constitué de 122 bits aléatoires. Cette absence totale de tri est sa force pour l’unicité, mais elle devient un handicap dans un index B‑tree, qui est la structure utilisée par PostgreSQL pour les clés primaires. Lorsque vous insérez un nouvel UUID v4, il a autant de chances de se retrouver au début de l’index qu’à la fin. Résultat : l’index se fragmente, les pages se remplissent mal, et les performances d’écriture se dégradent à mesure que la table grossit. J’ai reproduit un test simple sur PostgreSQL 16 avec 10 millions de lignes, en utilisant une table dont la seule différence est la colonne id : -- Table UUID v4 CREATE TABLE events_v4 ( id UUID DEFAULT gen_random_uuid () PRIMARY KEY , payload JSONB , created_at TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT now () ); -- Table UUID v7 (généré côté application, voir plus bas) CREATE TABLE events_v7 ( id UUID PRIMARY KEY , payload JSONB , created_at TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT now () ); Après insertion, voici les mesures : Type de clé Taille de l’index Fragmentation Latence moyenne d’insertion BIGINT ~214 Mo 0 % ~0,8 ms/ligne UUID v4 ~428 Mo (2×) 99 % ~4,8 ms/ligne UUID v7 ~428 Mo (2×) ~2 % ~1,1 ms/ligne Ce qui frappe, c’est la fragmentation quasi nulle de l’UUID v7. L’index reste compact et les insertions sont presque aussi rapides qu’avec un BIGSERIAL. L’UUID v4, lui, est plus de quatre fois plus lent à l’insertion sur ce volume. UUID v7 :

Thinking in terms of existence instead of lists SQL Pattern Series #1 of 21 A collection of practical SQL patterns that help developers recognize common solutions to recurring database problems. What You'll Learn In this article you'll learn: When EXISTS and IN solve the same problem The difference between set membership and existence Why the underlying mental model matters When I typically reach for EXISTS Most SQL developers write a query like this at some point: SELECT c . CustomerID , c . CustomerName FROM Customers c WHERE c . CustomerID IN ( SELECT o . CustomerID FROM Orders o ); And it works. But sometimes it isn't the best way to think about the problem. The Question Behind the Query Many SQL problems can be framed in two different ways. Set Membership Is this value in a set? WHERE CustomerID IN (...) Existence Does at least one matching row exist? WHERE EXISTS (...) Both approaches often return the same result. But they represent different mental models. The Presence Pattern The Presence Pattern is useful when you do not actually care about the values being returned from a related table. You only care whether a matching row exists. For example: Customers who have placed an order Users who have logged in Employees assigned to a project Products that have sales In these cases, the question is often: Does a related row exist? rather than: What values are contained in this list? Example Using EXISTS SELECT c . CustomerID , c . CustomerName FROM Customers c WHERE EXISTS ( SELECT 1 FROM Orders o WHERE o . CustomerID = c . CustomerID ); The subquery is correlated to the outer query. Conceptually, SQL asks: For this customer, does at least one matching order exist? As soon as the answer becomes true, the condition is satisfied. Why This Pattern Matters Many SQL developers initially learn syntax. Over time, they discover that query writing is really about choosing the right mental model. The Presence Pattern encourages you to think in terms of: existence relationshi

DuckDB 1.5.3 Iceberg updates, PostgreSQL TDE extension & AI index tuning Today's Highlights Today's highlights include DuckDB's enhanced Iceberg integration with new DML and schema evolution features, alongside a deep dive into PostgreSQL's new open-source Transparent Data Encryption. Additionally, we explore AI-driven strategies for automating PostgreSQL index tuning, offering practical performance improvements. New DuckDB-Iceberg Features in v1.5.3 (DuckDB Blog) Source: https://duckdb.org/2026/05/29/new-iceberg-features.html The latest DuckDB v1.5.3 release introduces significant enhancements for working with Apache Iceberg tables, a critical component in modern data lake architectures. Key additions include full MERGE INTO support, allowing users to efficiently update, insert, and delete rows in Iceberg tables based on a source query. This release also brings ALTER TABLE commands for schema evolution, enabling operations like adding, renaming, or dropping columns, crucial for adapting to changing data requirements. Furthermore, DuckDB now supports partition transforms within Iceberg, providing more control over data organization and query optimization. Compatibility has been extended to Iceberg V3, ensuring support for the latest table format specifications, and improved handling for Iceberg REST Catalogs streamlines metadata management. These features position DuckDB as an even more powerful embedded analytical database for processing large-scale, evolving datasets directly in a data lake environment, making complex ETL/ELT operations more accessible and performant. Comment: The MERGE INTO and ALTER TABLE additions are game-changers for using DuckDB in production data pipelines with Iceberg, enabling robust upserts and schema changes. Open-Source TDE for PostgreSQL: What pg_tde Is, and Whether You Need It (Planet PostgreSQL) Source: https://postgr.es/p/9kM This article introduces pg_tde , PostgreSQL's new open-source Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) option, a l

In modern application development, exposing database logic as REST APIs is a powerful way to integrate systems. Oracle REST Data Services (ORDS) makes it easy to turn PL/SQL into RESTful APIs without needing a separate backend service. In this blog, we’ll walk through how to create a simple POST API using ORDS and PL/SQL to insert data into a table. Pre-requisites A cloud-based ATP wallet (I prefer) Let's start how we create the APIs on the top of any custom table which relies on databases Create a table in the oracle SQL Developer and followed by create an ORDS Module 1.Create an ORDS Module A module is a logical container for related REST endpoints. What this Module does ?? Creates a module named nj_api Defines base URL: http://server_name/ords/table_Schema/nj_api/ 2: Define a Template (Endpoint Path) A template represents the API endpoint path. It defines how Endpoint URL:/ords/table_schema/nj_api/insert_data 3: Define the Handler (Business Logic) The handler contains the logic executed when the API is called. Key Concepts: p_method => 'POST': Defines HTTP method p_source_type => ORDS.source_type_plsql: Uses PL/SQL block Bind variables (:name, :num, etc.) map directly to JSON request body parameters 4: Testing the API Using Tools like Postman,cURL,ORDS REST Workshop I tested with Postman FYR Let's call same in Oracle VBCS in new blog. .. Try other methods like Delete, PATCH & GET

ORA-00031: Session Marked for Kill — What It Means and How to Fix It ORA-00031 occurs when a DBA issues ALTER SYSTEM KILL SESSION but Oracle cannot terminate the target session immediately. Instead, Oracle marks the session as "KILLED" and waits for it to reach a safe termination point — typically after completing a rollback or releasing OS-level resources. This is less of a hard error and more of a transitional state that every Oracle DBA will eventually encounter. Top 3 Causes 1. Large Transaction Rollback in Progress When you kill a session mid-transaction, Oracle must roll back all uncommitted changes to preserve data integrity. The larger the transaction, the longer the session stays in KILLED status. -- Check rollback progress for KILLED sessions SELECT s . sid , s . serial # , s . username , t . used_ublk AS undo_blocks , t . used_urec AS undo_records FROM v $ session s JOIN v $ transaction t ON s . taddr = t . addr WHERE s . status = 'KILLED' ; 2. Unresponsive or Disconnected Client If the client network connection is broken or the client process has hung, Oracle cannot deliver the kill signal. The session lingers in KILLED state until the OS-level connection finally times out. -- Find the OS process ID (SPID) for stuck KILLED sessions SELECT s . sid , s . serial # , s . username , s . status , p . spid AS os_pid , s . machine , s . program FROM v $ session s JOIN v $ process p ON s . paddr = p . addr WHERE s . status = 'KILLED' ; 3. OS-Level I/O or Resource Wait Sessions blocked at the OS level (disk I/O stall, memory pressure, storage issues) cannot respond to Oracle's internal kill signal. In these cases, only an OS-level process termination will resolve the problem. -- Identify what the session was waiting on before being killed SELECT sid , serial # , status , event , wait_class , seconds_in_wait FROM v $ session WHERE status = 'KILLED' ; Quick Fix Solutions Option 1 — Use the IMMEDIATE keyword (recommended first step) -- Standard kill (asynchronous) AL

In part 1 , the single-document case was easy. In part 2 , two documents brought Write Skew, and we saw that even a native ACID transaction — snapshot isolation — lets it through. So teams reach for the reflex fix: a distributed lock — Redis-based, often a Redlock-style implementation. Acquire a lock on a key, do your Read → Modify → Write, release. On paper, you've finally serialized the critical section — operationally, at least. In practice, you've stepped on three mines. 1. Network latency Every guarded transaction now makes extra round-trips to Redis — before and after hitting your NoSQL store. You've doubled your coordination surface and taken a hard dependency on a second system being up, reachable, and fast on the hot path of every write. The "fast" database is now gated by the lock service. And the coupling bites harder than the average latency suggests: every Redis tail-latency spike becomes your write-latency spike — your p99 inherits Redis's p99 — and if Redis fails over mid-transaction, the lock you think you're holding can effectively vanish on the new primary, dropping you straight into the corruption case below. 2. Deadlock You can dodge deadlock entirely with a single coarse lock — but then every writer serializes on it, and you've thrown away the very concurrency you reached for NoSQL to get. So to keep throughput you go fine-grained, one lock per resource — and the moment an invariant touches more than one key (across this series, it always does), deadlock is back on the table: Transaction A locks key X, then needs Y. Transaction B locks Y, then needs X. Both block until timeout or intervention. The textbook cure — real deadlock detection, maintaining a wait-for graph across every lock holder and breaking cycles as they form — is a distributed-systems project in its own right: not something you bolt onto a cache you reached for precisely to save engineering time. So nobody builds it. Instead teams impose a standing discipline: always acquire locks

Why Does Using an ORM Decrease Database Performance? While trying to optimize the shipping module in a production ERP, I noticed that database queries were incredibly slow. At first, I examined the SQL queries and checked the indexes. However, I couldn't get the performance boost I expected. The problem lay in the Object-Relational Mapper (ORM) library, which was the cornerstone of our application. ORMs make things easier for software developers by providing an abstract layer for database operations, but this convenience often comes at a performance cost. In this post, I will explain why using an ORM decreases database performance, using concrete examples from my own field experience. The core promise of ORMs is to keep developers away from SQL and allow them to interact with databases in a way that is more aligned with the object-oriented paradigm. This is a huge advantage, especially in small and medium-sized projects or rapid prototyping processes. However, when things get complex and performance becomes critical, the efficiency of the queries generated by ORMs starts to be questioned. In many cases I have encountered, especially in enterprise software development processes, the default behaviors of ORMs created an unexpected load on database servers. Query Inefficiencies Generated by ORMs ORMs usually manage database relationships using mechanisms like "eager loading" or "lazy loading". Depending on the developer's preference, these mechanisms either fetch all related data at once (eager loading) or fetch it in pieces as needed (lazy loading). However, ORMs may not always perform these loads in the most optimized way. For example, while only a few fields like ID and name are sufficient in a list view, the ORM might query the entire table or all related tables. This situation causes unnecessary data transfer and unnecessarily overloads the database server. To give an example, on the order list screen of an e-commerce site, we needed to display the customer inform

Author: Tobie Morgan Hitchcock Three months after 3.0 went GA, we're excited to announce that...

"We also obviously want to be very mindful of the Outer Space Treaty."