"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote in pgsql.performance:

> Quoting Randolf Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>          I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL
>>          vs. Oracle 
>> vs. Microsoft SQL Server.  Recently someone has been trying to convince
>> my 
> I don't know anything about your customer's requirements other than that
> they have a DB currently and somebody(ies) is(are) trying to get them to
> switch to another.
> I don't think you'll find meaningful numbers unless you do your own
> benchmarks. 
>      DB performance is very largely determined by how the application
>      functions, 
> hardware, OS and the DBA's familiarity with the platform.  I would
> suspect that for any given workload on relatively similar hardware that
> just about any of the DB's you mention would perform similarly if tuned
> appropriately. 
>> client to switch from SyBASE to Microsoft SQL Server (they originally
>> wanted 
>> to go with Oracle but have since fallen in love with Microsoft).  All
>> this time I've been recommending PostgreSQL for cost and stability (my
>> own testing 
>> has shown it to be better at handling abnormal shutdowns and using
>> fewer system resources) in addition to true cross-platform
>> compatibility. 
> Right for the customer?  How about "Don't fix it if it ain't broke"? 
> Replacing a DB backend isn't always trivial (understatement).  I suppose
> if their application is very simple and uses few if any proprietary
> features of Sybase then changing the DB would be simple.  That depends
> heavily on the application. In general, though, you probably shouldn't
> rip and replace DB platforms unless there's a very good strategic
> reason. 
> I don't know about MSSQL, but I know that, if managed properly, Sybase
> and Oracle can be pretty rock-solid and high performing.  If *you* have
> found FooDB to be the most stable and highest performing, then that
> probably means that FooDB is the one you're most familiar with rather
> than FooDB being the best in all circumstances.  PostgreSQL is great.  I
> love it.  In the right hands and under the right circumstances, it is
> the best DB.  So is Sybase.  And Oracle. And MSSQL.

        That's an objective answer.  Unfortunately the issue I'm stuck with is 
a Microsoft-crazy sales droid who's arguing that "MS-SQL is so easy to 
manage, like all Microsoft products, that a novice can make it outperform 
other high-end systems like Oracle even when tuned by an expert."  This 
crap makes me want to throw up, but in order to keep the client I'm doing 
my best to hold it down (I bet many of you are shaking your heads).

        The client is leaning away from the sales droid, however, and this is 
partly due to the help I've recieved here in these newsgroups -- thanks 

>>          If I can show my client some statistics that PostgreSQL
>>          outperforms 
>> these (I'm more concerned about it beating Oracle because I know that 
>> Microsoft's stuff is always slower, but I need the information anyway
>> to protect my client from falling victim to a 'sales job'), then
>> PostgreSQL will 
>> be the solution of choice as the client has always believed that they
>> need a 
>> high-performance solution.
> Unless there's a really compelling reason to switch, optimizing what
> they already have is probably the best thing for them.  They've already
> paid for it. 
>  They've already written their own application and have some familiarity
>  with 
> managing the DB.  According to Sybase, Sybase is the fastest thing
> going. :-) Which is probably pretty close to the truth if the
> application and DB are tuned appropriately.

        I agree with you completely.  However, the client's looking at getting 
the application completely re-programmed.  The current developer didn't 
plan it properly, and has been slapping code together as if it's a bowl of 
spaghetti.  In short, there are many problems with the existing system, and 
I'm talking about proper testing procedures that begin even at the design 
stage (before any coding begins).

>>          I've already convinced them on the usual price, cross-platform
>> compatibility, open source, long history, etc. points, and I've been
>> assured that if the performance is the same or better than Oracle's and
>> Microsoft's solutions that PostgreSQL is what they'll choose.
> Are you telling me that they're willing to pay $40K per CPU for Oracle
> if it performs 1% better than PostgreSQL, which is $0?  Not to mention
> throw away Sybase, which is a highly scalable platform in and of itself.
> The best DB platform is what they currently have, regardless of what
> they have, unless there is a very compelling reason to switch.

        Have you heard the saying "Nobody ever got fired for picking IBM?"  It 
is one of those situations where if they don't spend the money in their 
budget, then they lose it the next time around (no suggestions are needed 
on this issue, but thanks anyway).

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to