Well I for one find it very difficult to choose a DB other than PG and
do so only under duress. It is really only client demand that drives the
decision away from PG but like you, I am finding that more and more, PG
is winning the deal and winning the day. Once the replication and
ability to place tables and indexes on specified locations is in place,
it will be even more difficult for anyone to argue for paying a license
fee IMHO.
I don't find the data size limis of PG a problem and I do develop some
very large systems so for me personally, PG is largely an unstoppable
force now.
Tom Lane wrote:
>Bradley Kieser <brad@kieser.net> writes:
>
>
>>No, it isn't. Oracle is expensive but it is also the Rolls Royce, it
>>seems. I am a strictly OpenSource man so I don't really get into the
>>pricing thing, but I do know that it is also deal-by-deal and depending
>>on who and what you are, the prices can vary.
>>
>>
>
>I'm fairly sure that Oracle's pricing scales with the iron you plan to
>use: the more or faster CPUs you want to run it on, the more you pay.
>A large shop can easily get into the $100K license range, but Oracle
>figures that they will have spent way more than that on their hardware.
>
>The trouble with this theory is that as hardware prices fall, Oracle is
>collecting a larger and larger share of people's IT budgets. That's why
>we are seeing more and more interest in open-source DBs ...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>