Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After using oracle in the last few months.. I can see why they'd want to
> prevent those numbers.. Oracle really isn't that good. I had been under the
> impression that it was holy smokes amazingly fast. It just isn't. At least,
> in my experience it isn't. but that is another story.
Oracle's claim to performance comes not from tight coding and low overhead.
For that you use Mysql :)
Oracle's claim to performance comes from how you can throw it at a machine
with 4-16 processors and it really does get 4-16x as fast. Features like
partitioned tables, parallel query, materialized views, etc make it possible
to drive it further up the performance curve than Sybase/MSSQL or Postgres.
In terms of performance, Oracle is to Postgres as Postgres is to Mysql: More
complexity, more overhead, more layers of abstraction, but in the long run it
pays off when you need it. (Only without the user-friendliness of either
open-source softwares.)
--
greg
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
