Re: [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle
От | Josh |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.64.0706191128050.4305@home-av-server.home-av обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle (Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>) |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
> That would be incorrect. Factually, you are correct that it's incorrect. I'm talking about the perception. > How many CIOs check into the PostgreSQL advocacy group, just to pick > out one article? Few that I know of, which makes my point stronger and brings us to this: > instance, you may be able to get some improved reliability, but not in > the form of specific features (e.g. - ORAC) that 'smell like a > product.' So, on one hand you can pay BPOM to Oracle for all the enterpriseyness and fresh NOS (New Oracle Smell) money can buy. Or... > In other words, some risks are certain to be retained, and fancy > DBMS features can't necessarily mitigate them. ...you can pay SSPOM (Some Smaller Pile Of Money) to a PG vendor to harden PG. You won't get the enterprisey NOS, but the end result will be the same. The question then becomes, what are the second-level costs? (i.e., will high-reliability project X complete just as fast by hardening PG as it would by using Oracle's built-in features? What are the costs to train Oracle DBA's on PG - or what are the costs of their downtime while they learn PG?) Cheers, -J
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: