Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
Can we please trim this down to just advocacy? On Jun 18, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Jonah H. Harris wrote: On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question? Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that ask? 1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti- proprietary which is perfectly legitimate. 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a lot to fear in the sense of a database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/ donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly -- Jim Nasby[EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
Jonah H. Harris wrote: On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question? Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that ask? 1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti-proprietary which is perfectly legitimate. 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a lot to fear in the sense of a database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a lot to fear in the sense of a database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. Oracle also fears benchmarks made by people who don't know how to tune Oracle properly... ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
PFC wrote: 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a lot to fear in the sense of a database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. Oracle also fears benchmarks made by people who don't know how to tune Oracle properly... Yes that is one argument that is made (and a valid one) but it is assuredly not the only one that can be made, that would be legitimate. Joshua D. Drake ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that ask? As many times as necessary. Funny how the anti-proprietary-database arguments can continue forever and no one brings up the traditional RTFM-like response of, hey, this was already discussed in thread XXX, read that before posting again. 1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti-proprietary which is perfectly legitimate. As long as closed-mindedness is legitimate, sure. 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a lot to fear in the sense of a database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. They may well have a lot to fear, but that doesn't mean they do; anything statement in that area is pure assumption. I'm in no way saying we can't compete, I'm just saying that the continued closed-mindedness and inside-the-box thinking only serves to perpetuate malcontent toward the proprietary vendors by turning personal experiences into sacred-mailing-list gospel. All of us have noticed the anti-MySQL bashing based on problems with MySQL 3.23... Berkus and others (including yourself, if I am correct), have corrected people on not making invalid comparisons against ancient versions. I'm only doing the same where Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft are concerned. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 PFC wrote: 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a lot to fear in the sense of a database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. Oracle also fears benchmarks made by people who don't know how to tune Oracle properly... Well, bad results are as interesting as good results. And this problems applies to all other databases. Andreas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdsXdHJdudm4KnO0RArTkAKCZs6ht4z0lb2zHtr5MfXj8CsTZdQCgmwE5 JAD6Hkul1iIML42GO1vAM0c= =FMRt -END PGP SIGNATURE- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
Jonah H. Harris wrote: On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that ask? As many times as necessary. Funny how the anti-proprietary-database arguments can continue forever and no one brings up the traditional RTFM-like response of, hey, this was already discussed in thread XXX, read that before posting again. Yeah funny how you didn't do that ;) (of course neither did I). 1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti-proprietary which is perfectly legitimate. As long as closed-mindedness is legitimate, sure. It isn't closed minded to consider anti-proprietary a bad thing. It is an opinion and a valid one. One that many have made part of their lives in a very pro-commercial and profitable manner. 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a lot to fear in the sense of a database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. They may well have a lot to fear, but that doesn't mean they do; anything statement in that area is pure assumption. 95% of life is assumption. Some of it based on experience, some of it based on pure conjecture, some based on all kinds of other things. I'm in no way saying we can't compete, I'm just saying that the continued closed-mindedness and inside-the-box thinking only serves to perpetuate malcontent toward the proprietary vendors by turning personal experiences into sacred-mailing-list gospel. It is amazing how completely misguided you are in this response. I haven't said anything closed minded. I only responded to your rather antagonistic response to a reasonably innocuous question of: As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? It is a good question to ask, and a good question to discuss. All of us have noticed the anti-MySQL bashing based on problems with MySQL 3.23... Berkus and others (including yourself, if I am correct), have corrected people on not making invalid comparisons against ancient versions. I'm only doing the same where Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft are concerned. I haven't seen any bashing going on yet. Shall we start with the closed mindedness and unfairness of per cpu license and support models? Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah funny how you didn't do that ;) (of course neither did I). I agree, an oops on my part :) It is amazing how completely misguided you are in this response. I haven't said anything closed minded. I only responded to your rather antagonistic response to a reasonably innocuous question of: As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? I wasn't responding to you, just to the seemingly closed-mindedness of the original question/statement. We're all aware of the reasons, for and against, proprietary system licenses prohibiting benchmarking. It is a good question to ask, and a good question to discuss. Certainly, but can one expect to get a realistic answer to an, is Oracle fearing something question on he PostgreSQL list? Or was it just a backhanded attempt at pushing the topic again? My vote is for the latter; it served no purpose other than to push the competitiveness topic again. I haven't seen any bashing going on yet. Shall we start with the closed mindedness and unfairness of per cpu license and support models? Not preferably, you make me type too much :) -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jonah H. Harris wrote: All of us have noticed the anti-MySQL bashing based on problems with MySQL 3.23... Berkus and others (including yourself, if I am correct), have corrected people on not making invalid comparisons against ancient versions. I'm only doing the same where Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft are concerned. My, my, I fear my asbestos are trying to feel warm inside ;) Well, there is not much MySQL bashing going around. And MySQL 5 has enough features and current MySQL AB support for it is so good, that there is no need to bash MySQL based on V3 problems. MySQL5 is still a joke, and one can quite safely predict the answers to tickets, with well over 50% guess rate. (Hint: I don't consider the answer: Redo your schema to be a satisfactory answer. And philosophically, the query optimizer in MySQL is near perfect. OTOH, considering the fact that many operations in MySQL still have just one way to execute, it's easy to choose the fastest plan, isn't it *g*) Andreas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdsgCHJdudm4KnO0RAg2oAKCdabTyQCcK8eC0+ErVJLlX59nNjgCfQjaO hhfSxBoESyCU/mTQo3gbQRM= =RqB7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
All, On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:50:22PM +0200, Andreas Kostyrka wrote: [something] It would appear that this was the flame-fest that was predicted. Particularly as this has been copied to five lists. If you all want to have an argument about what Oracle should or should not do, could you at least limit it to one list? A -- Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Everything that happens in the world happens at some place. --Jane Jacobs ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
On 6/18/07, Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would appear that this was the flame-fest that was predicted. Particularly as this has been copied to five lists. If you all want to have an argument about what Oracle should or should not do, could you at least limit it to one list? Yeah, Josh B. asked it to be toned down to the original list which should've been involved. Which I think should be pgsql-admin or pgsql-advocacy... your thoughts? I think the Oracle discussion is over, David T. just needs URL references IMHO. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jonah H. Harris wrote: Certainly, but can one expect to get a realistic answer to an, is Oracle fearing something question on he PostgreSQL list? Or was it just a backhanded attempt at pushing the topic again? My vote is for the latter; it served no purpose other than to push the competitiveness topic again. Well, I'm a cynic at heart, really. So there was no bad intend behind it. And it was a nice comment, because I would base it on my personal experiences with certain vendors, it wouldn't be near as nice. The original question was about comparisons between PG and Oracle. Now, I could answer this question from my personal experiences with the product and support. That would be way more stronger worded than my small cynic question. Another thing, Joshua posted a guesstimate that PG can compete in 90-95% cases with Oracle. Because Oracle insists on secrecy, I'm somehow inclined to believe the side that talks openly. And while I don't like to question Joshua's comment, I think he overlooked one set of problems, namely the cases where Oracle is not able to compete with PG. It's hard to quantify how many of these cases there are performance-wise, well, because Oracle insists on that silly NDA, but there are clearly cases where PG is superior. Andreas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGds8WHJdudm4KnO0RAvb0AJ4gBec4yikrAOvDi5C3kc5NLGYteACghewU PkfrnXgCRfZlEdeMA2DZGTE= =BpUw -END PGP SIGNATURE- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:16:56PM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: pgsql-advocacy... your thoughts? I've picked -advocacy. I think the Oracle discussion is over, David T. just needs URL references IMHO. I don't think we can speak about Oracle; if we were licenced, we'd be violating it, and since we're not, we can't possibly know about it, right ;-) But there are some materials about why to use Postgres on the website: http://www.postgresql.org/about/advantages A -- Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do sir? --attr. John Maynard Keynes ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:38:32PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: I've picked -advocacy. Actually, I _had_ picked advocacy, but had an itchy trigger finger. Apologies, all. A -- Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are against all taxes for raising money to pay it off. --Alexander Hamilton ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
