Обсуждение: Open Source Database article
Here is a nice article comparing open-source and commercial databases:
http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/09/14/1253246&tid=11
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
I'd like to point out that many people replied arguing against the autor's
statements, claiming that the commercial RDBMSs actually do support
standards, and also arguing that the other benefits of commercial RDBMSs
weren't mentioned.
I'm not an Oracle DBA, so I don't know all the facts. But take what the
article says with a grain of salt, and check the facts.
The article was, however, nice to PostgreSQL :)
Regards,
Jeff
On Monday 16 September 2002 11:11 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Here is a nice article comparing open-source and commercial databases:
>
> http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/09/14/1253246&tid=11
Jeff Davis wrote: >I'd like to point out that many people replied arguing against the autor's >statements, claiming that the commercial RDBMSs actually do support >standards, and also arguing that the other benefits of commercial RDBMSs >weren't mentioned. > >I'm not an Oracle DBA, so I don't know all the facts. But take what the >article says with a grain of salt, and check the facts. > Being an Oracle Dba - but recovered now :-) I can say that 1 or 2 comments were a little out of date ( Oracle does *now* - at last supports ansi joins) - but the general intent of the article is dead on ! For 10 years or so, it never failed to astonish me that people would pay $$$$$$$ for a cd with Oracle on it ( ok - 3 cd's now) ... its great to be able to say - you dont have to - get Postgresql (or for that matter MySql/Firebird etc etc - but we prefer Postgresql here....) ! Best wishes Mark
On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 03:53:50 -0400 pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org wrote: > > Here is a nice article comparing open-source and commercial databases: > > http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/09/14/1253246&tid=11 > Although I am myself very fond of PosgreSQL, I am not sure whether the superficial advocacy in this article is really helpful. I would rather prefer honest comments both on the strengths and flaws of PostgreSQL. Eg. PostgreSQl is particularly weak on security aspects (every user has CreateTable rights, no schema support, no role privileges), which make it inadequate for some production environments. This is a point that I have never seen mentioned in any review article. Maybe I am the only one who bothers... Christoph Dalitz
Oh, that's interesting information. I've never had a reason to try Oracle, or
at least not enough of a reason to go through the install (though I have made
some half-hearted attempts). Every time I start looking at another database
to try out feature X (by feature I don't mean 1GB of client software), the
developers add it to Postgres.
And, yeah, it surprises me too sometimes what people will pay for... economics
is not an exact science :)
Regards,
Jeff
On Tuesday 17 September 2002 12:52 am, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Jeff Davis wrote:
> >I'd like to point out that many people replied arguing against the autor's
> >statements, claiming that the commercial RDBMSs actually do support
> >standards, and also arguing that the other benefits of commercial RDBMSs
> >weren't mentioned.
> >
> >I'm not an Oracle DBA, so I don't know all the facts. But take what the
> >article says with a grain of salt, and check the facts.
>
> Being an Oracle Dba - but recovered now :-) I can say that 1 or 2
> comments were a little out of date ( Oracle does *now* - at last
> supports ansi joins) - but the general intent of the article is dead on !
>
> For 10 years or so, it never failed to astonish me that people would pay
> $$$$$$$ for a cd with Oracle on it ( ok - 3 cd's now) ... its great to
> be able to say - you dont have to - get Postgresql (or for that matter
> MySql/Firebird etc etc - but we prefer Postgresql here....) !
>
> Best wishes
>
> Mark
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
On Tuesday 17 September 2002 01:22 am, Christoph Dalitz wrote: > On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 03:53:50 -0400 > > pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org wrote: > > Here is a nice article comparing open-source and commercial databases: > > > > http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/09/14/1253246&tid=11 > > Although I am myself very fond of PosgreSQL, I am not sure whether > the superficial advocacy in this article is really helpful. > > I would rather prefer honest comments both on the strengths and flaws > of PostgreSQL. Eg. PostgreSQl is particularly weak on security aspects > (every user has CreateTable rights, no schema support, no role privileges), > which make it inadequate for some production environments. > This is a point that I have never seen mentioned in any review article. > Maybe I am the only one who bothers... > I agree. Postgres pretty much leaves all that up to the clients. I get the impression that most environments don't involve a large number of database users accessing one DB. Otherwise that would come up more often, I would think. Schema support, BTW, is alive and well (from what I can tell) in 7.3b1. That, by the way, bings up an interesting point. What versions of software should people use to compare? Postgres will have all the features of 7.3 in a short while. So many of the features are working so well... should they be denied the coverage in an article? Then again, it's also not fair to compare the working features of one database with the almost-working features of another. Of course that brings up the whole concept of who's declaring the feature to be working (presumably the developers of the project), and their motivations. Well, it's certainly not easy to be fair, I suppose. Regards, Jeff
Hello! On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Christoph Dalitz wrote: > I would rather prefer honest comments both on the strengths and flaws > of PostgreSQL. Eg. PostgreSQl is particularly weak on security aspects > (every user has CreateTable rights, no schema support, no role privileges), It's better not have that weird way how role privileges work on Sybase.;-) Agreed, that it's bad that me as DBA can't restrict userz from CREATE/DROP tables.:-( And btw pg_hba.conf can be done in MySQL db/user/host tables way.:) -- WBR, Yury Bokhoncovich, Senior System Administrator, NOC of F1 Group. Phone: +7 (3832) 106228, ext.140, E-mail: byg@center-f1.ru. Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside.
Yury Bokhoncovich wrote: > Hello! > > On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Christoph Dalitz wrote: > > > I would rather prefer honest comments both on the strengths and flaws > > of PostgreSQL. Eg. PostgreSQl is particularly weak on security aspects > > (every user has CreateTable rights, no schema support, no role privileges), > > It's better not have that weird way how role privileges work on Sybase.;-) > Agreed, that it's bad that me as DBA can't restrict userz from CREATE/DROP > tables.:-( This will be available in 7.3. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073