David Harris wrote:
>
> Jeff Warner wrote:
> > We were a mySQL shop. We replaced mySQL with Oracle8i/mod_perl and
> > and Apache::DBI. Works great, once it is all setup. Our overall
> > processing is faster with Oracle too. The lack of transactions and
> > views put an immediate end of mySQL once we got into the details of my
> > project.
> >
> > Oracle is overkill for smaller task but you don't have to worry about
> > outgrowing it.
>
> What about PostgreSQL (www.postgresql.org)? It looks like it has transaction
> management (commit, rollback) with the whole concurrency control thing. I
> don't know if has views. I've got a small project that I am figuring on
> using PostgreSQL for, so I'm curious to hear what people might have to say
> about it.
Postgres is very slow. In my experience it was never fast enough to
rise to the scale of the project. Oracle can run really quickly with
the right tuning and hardware, and DBD::Oracle is the most advanced DBD
in several ways. DBD::Oracle supports Oracle stored procedures, stored
procedures which return cursors, and it is fast and robust.
Unfortunately, Oracle support is an ongoing criminal enterprise. Unless
you have the most expensive of all of their support contracts, and a
former Oracle VP on your staff, you will not get any support period. If
you mention Perl, you can forget about getting bugs fixed, even when the
bugs are clearly in the RDBMS and not the client. You have been warned.
Also you might want to tell your VCs to stick it. Just think about it.
The minute you let those banker fucks make technical decisions is the
minute that your company starts to decline.
-jwb
