Dear Tarun,
Comparison of PostgreSQL (open source) vis-a-vis Oracle (commercial) is UNFAIR! The
subject *should* be "PostgeSQL vs Foxpro Ooops > MySQL". PostgreSQL no doubt is a good
database BUT you can't match Oracle's superior technology. Its in the business for the
past 27 years (PostgreSQL made its presence felt in 1996) and a dominant player (40%
market share).
Oracle's database is supported on PDAs to MPP machines (support for more than 200
platforms). PostgreSQL CAN't boast such kind of statistics.
Replication Support was ONLY announced lately > 28/08/2003. It will take *some* time
to mature (bug fixing underway).
Fail over support > Yawn, Yawn ...N/D (No Details). Oracle's technology (i.e Real
Application Clusters) *is* UNBREAKABLE.
Consider this:
Synonyms
Postgres: No
Updateable views
Postgres: No.
Partial rollback of transaction
Postgres: No.
Practically useful maximum number of concurrent users
Postgres: N/D
Practical maximum number of concurrent users writing to the database
Postgres: N/D
Incremental backups
Postgres: No.
Scalability - Support for SMP systems (parallel query execution, etc.)
Postgres: Postgres is not threaded, but every connection gets it's own process. The
OS will distribute the processes across the processors. Basically a single connection
will not be any faster with SMP, but multiple connections will be.
Bitmap indexes
Postgres: No.
OLAP supporting functions in SQL
Postgres: No.
Automatic partitioning of large tables/indexes
Postgres: No.
Gateways to other DBMSs
Postgres: None.
Access to multiple databases in one session
Postgres: Only switching between databases.
Two phase commit
Postgres: No.
VLDB implementations
Postgres: 60GB+ databases exist BUT performance usually degrades.
Support from CASE packages
Postgres: N/D
Special solutions for storage of XML documents
Postgres: No.
XML support integrated in DBMS
Postgres: No.
Dedicated Web servers
Postgres: None.
Automatic recovery from failures
Postgres: No. There is no transaction log, so the only recovery method is to restore
database from backup
Availability and quality of technical support
Postgres: ONLY mailing lists and web-site (postgresql.org). Poor.
Specific market segments occupied
Postgres: Mostly in education and small web services
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarun Upadhyay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 10/10/2003 9:50 PM
To: 'The Linux-Delhi mailing list'
Cc:
Subject: [ilugd] Postgres vs oracle
We have a customer application on oracle.
They want to crate a "small footprint" version of it to be sold at a cheaper
price.
I want to suggest that Postgres could be the right choice of database for
that as it is close to oracle in its sql syntax and hence porting should be
simpler.
Can anybody guide me on what kind of pitfalls we could run into by choosing
Postgres. The database is not very large but is much larger than what goes
for "database" in mysql discussions (about 1 GB of data, 100 tables with
about 10-50 MB added every day)?
In particular, I would be interested in hearing from people who have run
moderately large databases on postgres and how fast they found it.
I have heard that it is possible to now provide replication and fail over
with postgres. Has anybody tried it?
Tarun
_______________________________________________
ilugd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
_______________________________________________
ilugd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
