> Yes, using SDE effectively castrates the spatial database. It still > walks and talks, but it's a shell of the man it was before. >
>> Ah, but a much cheaper shell than previously available to SDE users >> (with at least 87%(?) of the performance as I vaguely recall from some >> semi-relevant benchmark study)! It depends which shell you are talking about. If you compare with Oracle then yes probably so. Since well we know Oracle likes their customers a lot. But honestly if you are talking about SQL Server vs. PostgreSQL, I think the savings you get from running PostgreSQL would be dwarfed by the cost of SDE. From what I recall we paying for SQL Server 2005 - Standard for Dual processor (they don't charge for cores and all that nonsense) -- $10,000 (I think Enterprise is about $20,000 per processor well that I'm not sure but I recall about half or more of what Oracle charges) and the cost if you wanted to get SDE ontop of that as I recall checking way back was $20,000 for SDE for 2 processors alone (so $30,000). Granted my memory and comparison is a bit dated. Now if they charge per Processor as I recall they used to (and god forbid cores) and you are thinking I can save a pretty penny running PostgreSQL (with tons of processors) - hmm think again. ----------------------------------------- The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure pursuant to Massachusetts law. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
_______________________________________________ postgis-users mailing list [email protected] http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
