Thread: Re: [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
On 6/18/07, David Tokmatchi <david.tokmatchi@gmail.com> wrote: > Scalability ? Performance? Benchmark ? Availability ? Architecture ? > Limitation : users, volumes ? Resouces needed ? Support ? Aside from the Wikipedia database comparison, I'm not aware of any direct PostgreSQL-to-Oracle comparison. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 It's even harder, as Oracle disallows publishing benchmark figures in their license. As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? Andreas Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 6/18/07, David Tokmatchi <david.tokmatchi@gmail.com> wrote: >> Scalability ? Performance? Benchmark ? Availability ? Architecture ? >> Limitation : users, volumes ? Resouces needed ? Support ? > > Aside from the Wikipedia database comparison, I'm not aware of any > direct PostgreSQL-to-Oracle comparison. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdrfHHJdudm4KnO0RAqKQAJ96t7WkLG/VbqkWTW60g6QC5eU4HgCfShNd o3+YPVnPJ2nwXcpi4ow28nw= =1CwN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org> wrote: > As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question? -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org> wrote:
>> As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing?
>
> As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this
> type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question?
Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that ask?
1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti-proprietary
which is perfectly legitimate.
2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a
database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people
would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many
thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
> 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a
> database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people
> would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many
> thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars.
Oracle also fears benchmarks made by people who don't know how to tune
Oracle properly...
PFC wrote: > >> 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a >> database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where >> people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, >> many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. > > Oracle also fears benchmarks made by people who don't know how to > tune Oracle properly... Yes that is one argument that is made (and a valid one) but it is assuredly not the only one that can be made, that would be legitimate. Joshua D. Drake > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that ask? As many times as necessary. Funny how the anti-proprietary-database arguments can continue forever and no one brings up the traditional RTFM-like response of, "hey, this was already discussed in thread XXX, read that before posting again." > 1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti-proprietary > which is perfectly legitimate. As long as closed-mindedness is legitimate, sure. > 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a > database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people > would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many > thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. They may well have a lot to fear, but that doesn't mean they do; anything statement in that area is pure assumption. I'm in no way saying we can't compete, I'm just saying that the continued closed-mindedness and inside-the-box thinking only serves to perpetuate malcontent toward the proprietary vendors by turning personal experiences into sacred-mailing-list gospel. All of us have noticed the anti-MySQL bashing based on problems with MySQL 3.23... Berkus and others (including yourself, if I am correct), have corrected people on not making invalid comparisons against ancient versions. I'm only doing the same where Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft are concerned. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org> wrote: >> As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? > > As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this > type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question? > Well, my experience when working with certain DBs is much like I had some years ago, when I was forced to work with different SCO Unix legacy boxes. "Why do I have to put up with this silliness?", and with databases there is no way to get a sensible tool set by "shopping around" and installing GNU packages en masse :( Furthermore not being allowed to talk about performance is a real hard misfeature, like DRM. Consider: 1.) Performance is certainly an important aspect of my work as a DBA. 2.) Gaining experience as a DBA is not trivial, it's clearly a discipline that cannot be learned from a book, you need experience. As a developer I can gain experience on my own. As a DBA, I need some nice hardware and databases that are big enough to be nontrivial. 3.) The above points make it vital to be able to discuss my experiences. 4.) Oracle's license NDA makes exchanging experience harder. So as an endeffect, the limited number of playing grounds (#2 above) keeps hourly rates for DBAs high. Oracle's NDA limits secondary knowledge effects, so in effect it keeps the price for Oracle knowhow potentially even higher. Or put bluntly, the NDA mindset benefits completly and only Oracle, and is a clear drawback for customers. It makes Oracle-supplied consultants "gods", no matter how much hot air they produce. They've got the benefit of having internal peer knowledge, and as consumer there is not much that I can do counter it. I'm not even allowed to document externally the pitfalls and experiences I've made, so the next poor sob will walk on the same landmine. Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdsT5HJdudm4KnO0RAoASAJ9b229Uhsuxn9qGfU5I0QUfTC/dqQCfZK/b 65XQFcc0aRBVptxW5uzLejY= =UIF6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that ask?
>
> As many times as necessary. Funny how the anti-proprietary-database
> arguments can continue forever and no one brings up the traditional
> RTFM-like response of, "hey, this was already discussed in thread XXX,
> read that before posting again."
Yeah funny how you didn't do that ;) (of course neither did I).
>
>> 1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti-proprietary
>> which is perfectly legitimate.
>
> As long as closed-mindedness is legitimate, sure.
It isn't closed minded to consider anti-proprietary a bad thing. It is
an opinion and a valid one. One that many have made part of their lives
in a very pro-commercial and profitable manner.
>
>> 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a
>> database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people
>> would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many
>> thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars.
>
> They may well have a lot to fear, but that doesn't mean they do;
> anything statement in that area is pure assumption.
95% of life is assumption. Some of it based on experience, some of it
based on pure conjecture, some based on all kinds of other things.
>
> I'm in no way saying we can't compete, I'm just saying that the
> continued closed-mindedness and inside-the-box thinking only serves to
> perpetuate malcontent toward the proprietary vendors by turning
> personal experiences into sacred-mailing-list gospel.
It is amazing how completely misguided you are in this response. I
haven't said anything closed minded. I only responded to your rather
antagonistic response to a reasonably innocuous question of: "As a
cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? "
It is a good question to ask, and a good question to discuss.
>
> All of us have noticed the anti-MySQL bashing based on problems with
> MySQL 3.23... Berkus and others (including yourself, if I am correct),
> have corrected people on not making invalid comparisons against
> ancient versions. I'm only doing the same where Oracle, IBM, and
> Microsoft are concerned.
I haven't seen any bashing going on yet. Shall we start with the closed
mindedness and unfairness of per cpu license and support models?
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 PFC wrote: > >> 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a >> database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where >> people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, >> many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. > > Oracle also fears benchmarks made by people who don't know how to > tune Oracle properly... Well, bad results are as interesting as good results. And this problems applies to all other databases. Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdsXdHJdudm4KnO0RArTkAKCZs6ht4z0lb2zHtr5MfXj8CsTZdQCgmwE5 JAD6Hkul1iIML42GO1vAM0c= =FMRt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Yeah funny how you didn't do that ;) (of course neither did I). I agree, an oops on my part :) > It is amazing how completely misguided you are in this response. I > haven't said anything closed minded. I only responded to your rather > antagonistic response to a reasonably innocuous question of: "As a > cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? " I wasn't responding to you, just to the seemingly closed-mindedness of the original question/statement. We're all aware of the reasons, for and against, proprietary system licenses prohibiting benchmarking. > It is a good question to ask, and a good question to discuss. Certainly, but can one expect to get a realistic answer to an, "is Oracle fearing something" question on he PostgreSQL list? Or was it just a backhanded attempt at pushing the topic again? My vote is for the latter; it served no purpose other than to push the competitiveness topic again. > I haven't seen any bashing going on yet. Shall we start with the closed > mindedness and unfairness of per cpu license and support models? Not preferably, you make me type too much :) -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jonah H. Harris wrote: > > All of us have noticed the anti-MySQL bashing based on problems with > MySQL 3.23... Berkus and others (including yourself, if I am correct), > have corrected people on not making invalid comparisons against > ancient versions. I'm only doing the same where Oracle, IBM, and > Microsoft are concerned. > My, my, I fear my asbestos are trying to feel warm inside ;) Well, there is not much MySQL bashing going around. And MySQL 5 has enough "features" and current MySQL AB support for it is so "good", that there is no need to bash MySQL based on V3 problems. MySQL5 is still a joke, and one can quite safely predict the answers to tickets, with well over 50% guess rate. (Hint: I don't consider the answer: "Redo your schema" to be a satisfactory answer. And philosophically, the query optimizer in MySQL is near perfect. OTOH, considering the fact that many operations in MySQL still have just one way to execute, it's easy to choose the fastest plan, isn't it *g*) Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdsgCHJdudm4KnO0RAg2oAKCdabTyQCcK8eC0+ErVJLlX59nNjgCfQjaO hhfSxBoESyCU/mTQo3gbQRM= =RqB7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
All,
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:50:22PM +0200, Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
[something]
It would appear that this was the flame-fest that was predicted.
Particularly as this has been copied to five lists. If you all want
to have an argument about what Oracle should or should not do, could
you at least limit it to one list?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Everything that happens in the world happens at some place.
--Jane Jacobs
On 6/18/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote: > It would appear that this was the flame-fest that was predicted. > Particularly as this has been copied to five lists. If you all want > to have an argument about what Oracle should or should not do, could > you at least limit it to one list? Yeah, Josh B. asked it to be toned down to the original list which should've been involved. Which I think should be pgsql-admin or pgsql-advocacy... your thoughts? I think the Oracle discussion is over, David T. just needs URL references IMHO. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jonah H. Harris wrote: > Certainly, but can one expect to get a realistic answer to an, "is > Oracle fearing something" question on he PostgreSQL list? Or was it > just a backhanded attempt at pushing the topic again? My vote is for > the latter; it served no purpose other than to push the > competitiveness topic again. Well, I'm a cynic at heart, really. So there was no bad intend behind it. And it was a nice comment, because I would base it on my personal experiences with certain vendors, it wouldn't be near as nice. The original question was about comparisons between PG and Oracle. Now, I could answer this question from my personal experiences with the product and support. That would be way more stronger worded than my small cynic question. Another thing, Joshua posted a guesstimate that PG can compete in 90-95% cases with Oracle. Because Oracle insists on secrecy, I'm somehow inclined to believe the side that talks openly. And while I don't like to question Joshua's comment, I think he overlooked one set of problems, namely the cases where Oracle is not able to compete with PG. It's hard to quantify how many of these cases there are performance-wise, well, because Oracle insists on that silly NDA, but there are clearly cases where PG is superior. Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGds8WHJdudm4KnO0RAvb0AJ4gBec4yikrAOvDi5C3kc5NLGYteACghewU PkfrnXgCRfZlEdeMA2DZGTE= =BpUw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:16:56PM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > pgsql-advocacy... your thoughts? I've picked -advocacy. > > I think the Oracle discussion is over, David T. just needs URL references > IMHO. I don't think we can speak about Oracle; if we were licenced, we'd be violating it, and since we're not, we can't possibly know about it, right ;-) But there are some materials about why to use Postgres on the website: http://www.postgresql.org/about/advantages A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do sir? --attr. John Maynard Keynes
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:38:32PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I've picked -advocacy.
Actually, I _had_ picked advocacy, but had an itchy trigger finger.
Apologies, all.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are
against all taxes for raising money to pay it off.
--Alexander Hamilton
Can we please trim this down to just advocacy? On Jun 18, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Jonah H. Harris wrote: >> On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org> wrote: >>> As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? >> As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this >> type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question? > > Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that > ask? > > 1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti- > proprietary which is perfectly legitimate. > > 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of > a database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where > people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, > many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > -- > > === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === > Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 > Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 > http://www.commandprompt.com/ > > Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/ > donate > PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that > your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Andrew Kelly wrote: > On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 13:02 -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > >> On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org> wrote: >> >>> As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? >>> >> As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this >> type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question? >> >> > > As a nudist, I think I have to answer, "About every 9 weeks, it would > seem". As a surrealist, I'd have to say purple.