2016-07-15 13:25 GMT+02:00 <amatv...@bitec.ru>: > Hi > > > > Can be nice, if we can help to all Oracle users - but it is not > > possible in this world :( - there is lot of barriers - threading is > > only one, second should be different design of PL/SQL - it is based > > on out processed, next can be libraries, JAVA integration, and lot > > of others. I believe so lot of users can be simple migrated, NTT has > > statistics - 60% is migrated just with using Orafce. But still there > > will be 10% where migration is not possible without significant > > refactoring. > > The most of our customers now use oracle enterprise edition. > You can know better how important this is. > > But I agree with you that in other cases we can use PostgreSql. > We can use postgreSql with some disadvantages of pgBouncer anywhare > where the scalability is not main risk.(Such customers usually don't > buy Enterprise) > > >I don't believe so is cheaper to modify Postgres to > > support threads than modify some Oracle applications. > > The key is Scaling. > Some parallels processing just can not be divorced from data without > reducing performance. > It very difficult question would be it possible at all to get > comparable performance at application server for such cases. > If we "inject" applications server to postgreSql for that scalability and > functionality we need multithreading. >
but parallel processing doesn't requires threading support - see PostgreSQL 9.6 features. I am not sure, but I am thinking so PL/SQL is based on processed and not on threads too. So maybe this discussion is little bit out, because we use different terms. Regards Pavel > > If customization for every project is not big. > It's may be tuned. But from some point the tuning is not profitable. > (The database works in 24x7 and we need the ability to fix bugs on the fly) > So If for some reason we would start to use postgresql. > There is always a question what to choose funcionality or scalability. > And usually our customers need both. > > >I don't believe so is cheaper > For us it's may be not cheaper. It's just imposible. > >
