atani writes "PostgreSQL 8.1 has been posted, though not officially announced as of this moment. This release includes two-phased commits, improved SMP and overall performance, a new role system replaces the older user/group, autovacuum is now within the backend rather than a separate contrib module, and various improvements, performance enhancements, and bugfixes. " You can also read the developer notes for the popular database. One thing is clear- with the newest Postresql and MySql, you have much to choose from.Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='databases,developers';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; PostgreSQL 8.1 Available Log in/Create an Account | Top | 221 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 221 comments 0: 206 comments 1: 166 comments 2: 130 comments 3: 36 comments 4: 18 comments 5: 8 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Congratulations to the PostgreSQL Team! (Score:5, Informative) by mw (16262) on Tuesday November 08, @08:30AM (#13978005) I've tested RC1 with some applications, and was really impressed by the bitmap-indices. I hope to see soon a multi-master replication now that 2PC is available. I've heard Slony-2 will have it. [ Reply to ThisRe:Congratulations to the PostgreSQL Team! by commanderfoxtrot (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @09:22AMRe:Congratulations to the PostgreSQL Team! by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @09:32AMRe:Congratulations to the PostgreSQL Team! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @09:59AMRe:Congratulations to the PostgreSQL Team! by jadavis (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @11:04AMRe:Congratulations to the PostgreSQL Team! by thevoice99 (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @04:49PMRe:Trollvoidance by GreyWolf3000 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @10:47AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Question for Taco (Score:2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08, @08:32AM (#13978021) Would you consider changing?Are you sticking with what you know or are you going to bite the bullet and switch?Have you upgraded mysql yet? (i seem to recall thats what you use) [ Reply to This Re:Question for Taco (Score:4, Interesting) by toofast (20646) on Tuesday November 08, @01:09PM (#13980342) (http://www.eclipse.org/) Here's what I think he'll answer to your first question:"MySQL works fine on Slashdot. It has all the features and performance we need, it has been running flawlessly for years and we're already familiar with it, so why should we change to anything else? What makes you think there's a bullet that needs biting? Granted, PG looks neat and all, but why exchange a dollar for four quarters?"Here's what I think he'll answer to your second question:"MySQL 5 doesn't offer us any features we absolutely need (otherwise we'd be using PG, right?) We will upgrade eventually, but we have bigger fish to fry right now, and upgrading our database is not very imperative."Something else he might say:"Running slashdot is not as simple as running a basement website that gets 3 hits per hour. Thought needs to be put into these decisions. We can't just run off and install something the day it's released." [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold. Windows installer location? (Score:2) by mgkimsal2 (200677) on Tuesday November 08, @08:36AM (#13978041) (http://www.webdevradio.com/) I can't seem to find a Windows binary on the 'ftp browser' on their site. Am I missing something? Or is the Windows version of 8.1 not available yet? [ Reply to This nevermind - I'm just hard of reading this morning (Score:5, Informative) by mgkimsal2 (200677) on Tuesday November 08, @08:38AM (#13978051) (http://www.webdevradio.com/) Found it!http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/v8.1.0/win32/ [postgresql.org] is the link.Clicking the '8.1' link on the 'new releases' section on the front page takes you to the 'source' files only. That was the problem I had! [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Windows installer location? by mgkimsal2 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @08:47AM2 replies beneath your current threshold. The inherit bug? (Score:1) by kjetiln (729530) on Tuesday November 08, @08:39AM (#13978056) When are they going to fix the inherit bug? The one described on the bottom of this page:http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/ddl -inherit.html [postgresql.org]It is to bad that objects does not work yet. [ Reply to ThisRe:The inherit bug? by shakah (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @10:13AMRe:The inherit bug? by Lexicon (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @10:42AMRe:The inherit bug? by addbo (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @11:03AMRe:The inherit bug? by shakah (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:50AMRe:The inherit bug? by bigtrike (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @12:11PMRe:The inherit bug? by Lexicon (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @12:06PMRe:The inherit bug? by cayenne8 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:39AM Re:The inherit bug? (Score:5, Informative) by rycamor (194164) on Tuesday November 08, @12:03PM (#13979745) For those who really understand relational database design, there is nothing that object inheritance can represent that you can't handle relationally.In fact, the PostgreSQL team has been musing for years on whether to drop object inheritance completely, because it just muddies the waters of relational design, and causes implementation details to affect logical design.But interestingly, table inheritance has become a solution to a lower-level implementation problem: "horizontal" table partitioning. Using inheritance together with tablespaces (available since 8.0), you can break a large table into multiple subtables, each on a different physical storage device, then make a table that inherits from them all to present unified querying to the whole range of data. This is a *big* advantage for very large databases. [ Reply to This | Parent PostgreSQL 8.1 Release Notes (Score:2, Informative) by dpage (566064) on Tuesday November 08, @08:43AM (#13978072) The URL for the release notes in the story should be:http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/rel ease.html#RELEASE-8-1 [postgresql.org] [ Reply to This Much to choose from? (Score:2, Interesting) by ltning (143862) <ltning@an[ ]n.net ['dui' in gap]> on Tuesday November 08, @08:45AM (#13978079) (http://anduin.net/) I count two (2) things: PostgreSQL and MySQL.Since when was two a crowd? ;)But neither of the two have a good, cross-platform clustering- or multi-master replication solution, which makes things kinda difficult in our end. For MySQL I can use circular replication, but this is undocumented at best, and very error-prone in extreme situations. The clustering in MySQL doesn't count - in-memory storage limited to half of your physical mem - come on, that's ridicolous. And for Postgres, any multi-master solution there would (currently) dramatically reduce performance. Not the best thing either.Oh well. Maybe by this time next year. [ Reply to ThisRe:Much to choose from? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @09:19AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Much to choose from? by namekuseijin (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @10:41AMRe:Much to choose from? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @06:23PMPostgresql has multimaster replication. by Some Random Username (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @11:04AMFirebird by Urusai (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @02:57PMRe:Much to choose from? by killjoe (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @03:11PM Just installed Win32 version (Score:4, Interesting) by mgkimsal2 (200677) on Tuesday November 08, @08:53AM (#13978118) (http://www.webdevradio.com/) Just installed the Windows version. Just a quick couple notes here...1. Installer was seemingly faster than 8.0 version.2. Installer could do a little bit better job of hiding all the 'options' (ISBN, Fuzzy search, etc) you can install. Put them behind an 'advanced' button or something - it's a little intimidating to see so many options at first. Also the PL language choices are odd - 'pl/Perl' and 'pl/Perl (untrusted)' ??? These are things that could probably be hidden from the majority of people just testing it out for the first time - either install everything by default, or nothing, but put some of these things behind 'advanced' tabs.3. pgAdmin III bundled tool is 1.4 - I think I was using 1.3 last time I installed. Visually it looks a bit nicer - I'm assuming they've fixed some bugs or something similar to warrant a number change. :)I'll probably get flamed for #2, but I'm just putting out some suggestions. The fact that there *is* a Windows installer at all is a good thing - I'd just like to see it improve to help reach a wider audience for future releases. [ Reply to ThisRe:Just installed Win32 version by dpage (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @09:07AMThanks by mgkimsal2 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @09:11AM Re:Just installed Win32 version (Score:5, Insightful) by bigHairyDog (686475) on Tuesday November 08, @09:11AM (#13978208) That's the PostGreSQL philosophy - don't hide the complexity. MySQL did that, and was rewarded by popularity and a generation of people who didn't understand database administration. PostGreSQL makes you pay attention to these options, and educates you in the process. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Just installed Win32 version by archen (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @10:35AMRe:Just installed Win32 version by electroniceric (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @10:59AMRe:Just installed Win32 version by cayenne8 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:47AMRe:Just installed Win32 version by johnnyb (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:13PMRe:Just installed Win32 version by LDoggg_ (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @01:20PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Just installed Win32 version by moz25 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @09:31AMRe:Just installed Win32 version by electroniceric (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @09:55AM Not announced (Score:5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08, @08:57AM (#13978132) PostgreSQL 8.1 has been posted, though not officially announced as of this moment.They were probably waiting for their mirrors to finish syncing before some yo-yo posted to /. and caused every other yo-yo to start downloading. [ Reply to ThisRe:Not announced by StrawberryFrog (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @10:15AMRe:Not announced by atani (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @10:17AM RC1/RC2 (Score:5, Informative) by PhYrE2k2 (806396) on Tuesday November 08, @09:03AM (#13978166) (http://www.myinnercircle.ca/) Been using RC1/RC2 for some time now. I'm impressed with the role feature, although it won't add much to the average user. The speed has been night and day with 7.3. I also haven't had any problems with the RC's in the slightest except one: a renamed table then wouldn't let me delete the sequence it depended on after the renamed table was deleted. Apparently I wasn't the only one who found it and it has been reported as fixed, though who knows.My only beef with PgSQL has been there since before the 7's. There is still no way to not show the list of databases to users who have no right or access to those databases. Why should userA with rights to databaseA see that there is a databaseB or databaseC? This really seems like a simple feature, yet nobody will accept it into the release.-M [ Reply to ThisRe:RC1/RC2 by kannibal_klown (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @09:10AM Re:RC1/RC2 (Score:4, Interesting) by PhYrE2k2 (806396) on Tuesday November 08, @09:22AM (#13978287) (http://www.myinnercircle.ca/) it seems like a simple check, in the same way when it checks for permissions, when doing a list of databases. Seems to make sense.In a shared database server, it can be important. Although it in a way is security-through-obscurity, many would rather not have their database name 'companyfinances' visible to those with no access. Additionally, on a shared database services, you don't want your customers to know if there are 20 or 200 databases on that server (the number means nothing depending on the size anyway, but looks bad).-M [ Reply to This | ParentRe:RC1/RC2 by chriskl (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @09:39AMRe:RC1/RC2 by electroniceric (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @10:01AMRe:RC1/RC2 by PhYrE2k2 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @07:43PMRe:RC1/RC2 by shakah (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @10:03AMRe:RC1/RC2 by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @10:17AMRe:RC1/RC2 by jBabel (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @10:59AMRe:RC1/RC2 by LordHunter317 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:40PMRe:RC1/RC2 by PhYrE2k2 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @07:00PM at last "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE NOWAIT" (Score:2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08, @09:05AM (#13978174) I always wondered how one could create a multiuser database frontend reliably without this statement:SELECT ... FOR UPDATE NOWAIT;If you doSELECT ... FOR UPDATE;you either get exclusive access OR you block waiting for the person editing a record to finish. Obviouslt blocking isn't good in a frontend. Hacks like timeout=100, because this can trigger just because the database is being used heavily at that moment, and at best is an ugly work around.Now with the NOWAIT option you can return instantly and say "Someone else has the row locked", and give control back to the user.Nice feature to have, but people have been using postgres (and other databases) sucessfully for years. How did they work around it? [ Reply to This Re:at last "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE NOWAIT" (Score:5, Informative) by Daniel_Staal (609844) <DStaal@usa.net> on Tuesday November 08, @09:32AM (#13978352) Most handle it by giving you the view of the data before the other user started to modify it. The person who is editing's edits do not show until all of the edit is finished.Postgres docs actually have a chapter on this: Concurrency Control [postgresql.org]. Like most high-end databases Postgres can handle this situation in different ways, depending on how it is set up...A database should never tell you that the data is not avalible. It should always give you the best version of the data it has. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:at last "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE NOWAIT" by slamb (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @04:42PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:at last "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE NOWAIT" by rtaylor (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @10:41AMRe:at last "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE NOWAIT" by gwicks (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @10:42AMRe:at last "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE NOWAIT" by daBass (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:18AMEVIL functionality by daBass (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:25AMRe:at last "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE NOWAIT" by LordHunter317 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:43PM It's pretty sweet (Score:2, Interesting) by Mark Round (211258) on Tuesday November 08, @09:12AM (#13978215) (http://www.markround.com/) I've been running my Blastwave packages[1] of the betas and RCs since the first snapshots became available, and I've been massively impressed with this release. Moving autovacuum into the main package is a really nice touch - all you have to do now is uncomment a few lines in postgresql.conf and it handles it all for you.The new roles system is also amazingly useful. You can set up a range of roles with a variety of permissions, and then let users "assume" those roles. So you can log in with a day-to-day account, and when you need to do some admin work just SET ROLE [name of your super-user role] and then revert back once you're done. Great if you want to give a junior DBA the ability to create databases, but not the ability to modify other things (such as creating new roles).Congratulations to the PostgreSQL team anyway - for doing things "the right way" :)[1]=http://www.blastwave.org/testing/ [blastwave.org] [ Reply to ThisRe:It's pretty sweet by Zeut (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @11:27AM Super! (Score:2) by tcopeland (32225) * <`tom' `at' `infoether.com'> on Tuesday November 08, @09:16AM (#13978249) (http://tomcopeland.home.mindspring.com/) Time to upgrade my Jabber server [blogs.com] from PostgreSQL 8.0.4. And with RubyForge getting up past 3.5M records [blogs.com] now, performance improvements are good news... [ Reply to ThisRe:Super! by lorcha (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @03:45PMRe:Super! by tcopeland (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @04:48PMRe:Super! by jadavis (Score:2) Wednesday November 09, @12:09AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. MySQL vs. PostgreSQL (Score:3, Interesting) by ChrisF79 (829953) on Tuesday November 08, @09:20AM (#13978279) (http://www.understandfinance.com/) I run a very small website as a hobby and I've just always used MySQL because that's what my PHP book featured. I hear quite a bit about mysql in forums on PHP that I go to, and on slashdot itself so I'm asking you... how popular is Postgre? If I used forum posts as any proxy, it would look like MySQL is dominant. Is that really the case? [ Reply to ThisRe:MySQL vs. PostgreSQL by boinger (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:37AMRe:MySQL vs. PostgreSQL by ouzel (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @12:19PMRe:MySQL vs. PostgreSQL by jadavis (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:42AMRe:MySQL vs. PostgreSQL by elp (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:46AMRe:MySQL vs. PostgreSQL by kashani (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @01:02PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:MySQL vs. PostgreSQL by jd (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:55AMKind of a dumb question by lorcha (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:55PMRe:Kind of a dumb question by ChrisF79 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:57PMMySQL is more popular by lorcha (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @03:23PMRe:MySQL is more popular by ChrisF79 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @04:10PMRe:MySQL is more popular by lorcha (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @04:20PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:MySQL vs. PostgreSQL by thing12 (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @01:40PM Embedded version? (Score:3, Interesting) by Kunta Kinte (323399) on Tuesday November 08, @09:27AM (#13978327) (Last Journal: Thursday December 11, @08:15PM) I would switch to PostgreSQL if there were an embedded version.SQLite is great but concentrates on being a small database. This design choice is great for many applications probably, though poor handling of large rows ( can't read partial blobs, etc. ), weak concurrency model, etc. inconveniences others. [ Reply to ThisRe:Embedded version? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @10:10AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. quick question. (Score:2) by CDPatten (907182) on Tuesday November 08, @09:42AM (#13978421) I am not trolling here, I honestly don't know allot about database software.How does this compare to SQL 2k and the newly released SQL 2k5? I already know the comments about open source, free, etc.THAT ASIDE, how do the released compiled programs compare? Does anyone know? [ Reply to ThisRe:quick question. (DB comparison is hard.) by Zeut (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @11:31AM Re:quick question. (Score:4, Interesting) by jadavis (473492) on Tuesday November 08, @11:33AM (#13979432) PostgreSQL is rock solid, and very extensible (user-defined aggregates, user-defined procedural languages, user defined functions, triggers, user defined types, table functions, and much more). It probably also performs better in many situations due, in part, to MS SQLs locking vs. PostgreSQL's MVCC.However, there are more tools available for MS SQL, and there is some form of multi-master replication and probably better table partitioning. MS SQL is not really a bad database, but I think PostgreSQL has it beat except on those two points.Any real performance analysis is heavily application dependent, however. If that's what you care about, you need to do your own tests. [ Reply to This | Parent Re: there are more tools available for MS SQL (Score:4, Informative) by brennz (715237) on Tuesday November 08, @01:08PM (#13980334) (Note - some content cross posted from the recent MSSQL2005 posting I made)I take issue with the number of tools.Postgresql has a great variety of tools, both OSS and commercial that work great. I've been working on an updated list of all the tools. Here are a few of the most popular admin tools:PGadminIIIhttp://www.sqlmanager.net/products/postgresql/mana [sqlmanager.net] ger [sqlmanager.net]DBvisualizerhttp://www.minq.se/products/dbvis/ [www.minq.se] [www.minq.se]EMS Postgresql Managerhttp://www.sqlmanager.net/products/postgresql/mana [sqlmanager.net] ger [sqlmanager.net]PHPpgadminhttp://sourceforge.net/projects/phppgadmin [sourceforge.net] [sourceforge.net]Sybase Power Designerhttp://www.sybase.com/products/enterprisemodeling/ [sybase.com] powerdesigner [sybase.com]ERWIN data modellerhttp://www3.ca.com/Solutions/Product.asp?ID=260 [ca.com] [ca.com]CASE Studio 2http://www.casestudio.com/enu/default.aspx [casestudio.com] [casestudio.com]Postgresql has a vibrant tool community. If you want more info on Postgresql tools seehttp://techdocs.postgresql.org/v2/Guides/PostgreSQ [postgresql.org] L%20GUI%20Tools/document_view [postgresql.org] [ Reply to This | ParentRe: there are more tools available for MS SQL by jadavis (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:55PMRe:quick question. by FatherOfONe (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @11:40AMRe:Ew! FileMaker! by FatherOfONe (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:53PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:quick question. (Score:4, Interesting) by killjoe (766577) on Tuesday November 08, @03:28PM (#13981799) 1) It's free. SQL server costs 5000 per processor or 16,000 per processor depending on the version2) It runs on every platform. SQL server only runs on windows. It's the only database in wisespread use that locks you to one operating system.3) It has no limits on how much memory it uses. SQL server standard edition limits itself to 2 gigs as of SQL server 2K (don't know if they fixed that by now).4) it supports text fields that are only limited by your OS and uses them extremely efficiently. These are not like SQL server blob fields but they are like HUGE text fields that can be indexed or used in aggregate functions.5) It has user definable data types, user definable operators, user definable functions.6) It can use perl, python, java, tcl or PG/Pqsl as it's stored procedure languages. YOu can also use C and even compile your C stored procs in with the server if you want super speed.7) It has multi version concurrency control. This means readers never block writers, ever.8) No lock escalation. SQL server users know the value of this, everybody else takes it for granted.9) Lots of built in datatypes like arrays, IP address, geometric types, GIS types etc. Yes it's possible to write a query that asks "select all rectangles that contain this point" or "select all ip addresses in this address mask"10) Support for hierarchies (in the contrib) so you can natually and intuitively model graphs without writing code or using complex self joins and such. Look up ltree.11) A fantastic rule system. You can make anything look like a updateable recordset if you are willing to code it.12) PostGIS.I am just scratching the surface. I am sure I have missed some other features but that should whet you appetite. [ Reply to This | Parent Headline wording (Score:1, Interesting) by d_54321 (446966) on Tuesday November 08, @09:43AM (#13978423) It's interesting that this is worded as "PostgreSQL 8.1 Available" and just a short while ago there was a story entitled "MSSQL 2005 Finally Released." Would it have been so painful to name the MS story without bias? [ Reply to ThisRe:Headline wording by Disoculated (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @10:47AMRe:Headline wording by eventDriven (Score:1) Tuesday November 08, @10:57AMbecause only one was actually late by jbellis (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @11:32AMRead the writeup, dipshit by lorcha (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @03:32PM3 replies beneath your current threshold. It's incredible (Score:2) by photon317 (208409) on Tuesday November 08, @10:02AM (#13978583) I've been using 8.1 beta releases for a while now, and even compared to 8.0.x (which was really good), 8.,1 is very impressive and well worth the upgrade. Performance improvements alone are worth it (esp on SMP).But the biggest thing to me in 8.1, which the blurb didn't mention, is native support for inheritance-based table partitioning optimizations, which is a huge performance win for large and/or ever-growing tables. [ Reply to This Awesome - later (Score:2) by Soong (7225) on Tuesday November 08, @10:07AM (#13978612) (http://bolson.org/ | Last Journal: Friday May 20, @03:44PM) Sounds great, but with everything up and stable at the moment, I'll wait to switch to it when I'm developing something new again. [ Reply to This /. Meta question: a wheelbarrow? (Score:4, Interesting) by markhb (11721) on Tuesday November 08, @10:12AM (#13978667) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday October 06, @09:20AM) Okay, I'm going to bite: what on earth does a red wheelbarrow have to do with databases? [ Reply to This Re:/. Meta question: a wheelbarrow? (Score:4, Insightful) by amorico (40859) on Tuesday November 08, @11:16AM (#13979203) I assume it is from the William Carlos Williams Poem, Red Wheelbarrow [upenn.edu] so much dependsupona red wheelbarrow glazed with rainwater beside the whitechickens. A database being the red wheelbarrow of course. Don't ask about the chickens. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:/. Meta question: a wheelbarrow? by markhb (Score:2) Tuesday November 08, @12:23PMSome ancient history by jd (Score:3) Tuesday November 08, @11:41AM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Still no FULLTEXT indexes? (Score:3, Interesting) by inio (26835) on Tuesday November 08, @10:23AM (#13978759) (http://www.inio.org/)