今日已更新 295 条资讯 | 累计 25845 条内容
关于我们

开发者

编程技术、框架工具、最佳实践

7218
篇文章

共 7218 篇 · 第 214/361 页

Dev.to

DuckDB 1.5.2, PostgreSQL Internal Stats, and SQLite Virtual Table xUpdate Deep Dive

DuckDB 1.5.2, PostgreSQL Internal Stats, and SQLite Virtual Table xUpdate Deep Dive Today's Highlights This week brings a stable new patch release for DuckDB, enhancing performance and adding DuckLake support. We also delve into PostgreSQL's internal statistics for better tuning and explore advanced SQLite virtual table implementation via xUpdate . Announcing DuckDB 1.5.2 (DuckDB Blog) Source: https://duckdb.org/2026/04/13/announcing-duckdb-152.html DuckDB has released version 1.5.2, a patch update focusing on stability and performance. This release includes critical bugfixes that improve the reliability of the in-process analytical database, addressing various edge cases and enhancing overall robustness. Key enhancements also target performance bottlenecks, ensuring faster query execution for diverse analytical workloads. A significant new feature in this version is the official support for the DuckLake v1.0 lakehouse format. This integration positions DuckDB as a more robust tool for handling modern data architectures, allowing users to efficiently query and manage data stored in a lakehouse paradigm directly within their applications or analytical workflows. This update makes DuckDB even more compelling for embedded analytics and data pipeline use cases, providing a flexible and high-performance option for developers. Comment: Always good to see performance improvements and bug fixes for an embedded analytics powerhouse like DuckDB. DuckLake v1.0 support is a big step for managing structured data in lakehouse environments directly from DuckDB, enhancing its utility for complex data architectures. pg_stats: How Postgres Internal Stats Work (Planet PostgreSQL) Source: https://postgr.es/p/9mG This article from Planet PostgreSQL delves into the intricate mechanisms behind PostgreSQL's internal statistics, specifically focusing on pg_stats . Understanding how Postgres collects and utilizes these statistics is fundamental for effective database performance tuning and q

soy 2026-06-23 05:35 👁 7 查看原文 →
Dev.to

Ever had a renamed column quietly break a CSV export? csv-pipe makes it a compile error, reads and writes both ways, and parses several times faster than papaparse. Live playground in the post to try your own data.

csv-pipe: read and write CSV in TypeScript, several times faster than papaparse Myroslav Martsin Myroslav Martsin Myroslav Martsin Follow Jun 22 csv-pipe: read and write CSV in TypeScript, several times faster than papaparse # javascript # typescript # webdev # node 1 reaction Add Comment 2 min read

Myroslav Martsin 2026-06-23 05:26 👁 6 查看原文 →
Dev.to

Sentry vs OpenTelemetry: You Don’t Need to Pick One

TL;DR — If your backend already uses OpenTelemetry, you can send traces and logs to Sentry by changing a few environment variables. No SDK swap, no instrumentation rewrite. Point your OTLP exporter at Sentry’s endpoint, add the Sentry SDK on the frontend for browser context, and you get one connected trace from click to backend span. You already instrumented the backend with OpenTelemetry. Your services emit spans. Your teams know the OTel APIs. Maybe you already run a Collector. So when you start evaluating Sentry, the obvious question is: Do you need to replace your OpenTelemetry setup with the Sentry SDK? No. The practical answer is usually: keep OpenTelemetry where it already works, add the Sentry SDK where it gives you more application context, and send OpenTelemetry Protocol (OTLP) events to Sentry. For a web app, that often means using the Sentry SDK on the frontend for browser tracing, errors, logs , Session Replay , and source maps, while keeping OpenTelemetry on the backend for existing service instrumentation. One scope note: OTLP can carry traces, logs, and metrics. At this moment, Sentry’s OTLP ingest supports logs and traces, not metrics. We’re considering adding support for them in the future. The important part is separating two decisions that often get lumped together: How traces stay connected across frontend and backend. How backend OTLP events are exported to Sentry. Once you separate those, the architecture gets a lot easier to reason about. Sentry vs OpenTelemetry is the wrong question The first decision is trace linking. If a user clicks a button in your React app and that click triggers a backend request, the frontend and backend need to agree on the same distributed trace context. In this example, the Sentry frontend SDK sends W3C traceparent headers (configurable through the propagateTraceparent option), and the OpenTelemetry backend continues the trace. That linking is handled by the frontend SDK configuration: Sentry . init ({ integration

Anton Bjorkman 2026-06-23 05:23 👁 10 查看原文 →