Re: PostgreSQL x Oracle

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Marcelo Pereira wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have been using PostgreSQL to do everything I need, but people always
> ask me ``why PostgreSQL''.
>
> I use to tell that PostgreSQL is powerfull, but when they ask me to
> compare PostgreSQL with Oracle I get myself in troubles.
>
> I don't use Oracle!
>
> What does Oracle have that Postgresql doesn't have? Why does people
> continue thinking that Oracle is better than PostgreSQL?
>
> How can I compare it??

First off, I have to say that Postgresql and Oracle are more alike than
different.  They are both reliable, stable database systems.  They both
have similar featurese, like stored procedures, triggers, views, all
manner of unions and joins are supported, and they both use the MVCC style
of locking.  If you haven't read up on what MVCC is, I'd suggest reading
the postgresql manual on it.

The biggest differences between the two is the objects of the teams that
build those databases, and the amount of man hours they can put in.  Since
Oracle corp is rather large, they can afford to throw man power at problem
areas the pgsql team is just now getting around to tackling, like
replication, clustering, etc...

I'm sure that as time goes by more and more of the mission critical domain
will fall to Postgresql, but for now, I use it more as a solid reliable
storage system for intranet applications and for data mining and
warehousing.  In this application, being up 24/7 with no down time is not
really needed.  That being said, we've probably had no more than a few
minutes of downtime in the last three years we've been using postgresql.

But here's the real performance issue.  I'm willing to bet that whatever
it costs to build a fast Oracle server, hardware + licenses, I could spend
on just the hardware for Postgresql and outrun it.  Last I checked the per
CPU cost of Oracle enterprise edition was $40,000.

So, assuming you were going to put Oracle on a stock white box, say a 2.8
GHz Xeon, (Dell poweredge 2650 with 2 gig ram would be $6700 with dual 18
Gig hard drives)   So I'd get to build a $46,700 dollar server for my
Postgresql box.  Building a quad 2.0 GHz xeon with 16 Gigs ram and four 73
gig hard drives still doesn't quite get me to $40,000.  I guess I could
buy a high end support contract from the pgsql.com guys or something to
spend a little more money.  Then I get to use their rep server for free.
Might wanna look at a backup box at that point.

If you go to a dual CPU box, I now have $80,000+ to spend, and SGI has
some very nice equipment for that price.

My point is that the cost of licensing in Oracle quickly makes Postgresql
look attractive for anything that doesn't need that 24/7 mission critical
tag on it.