On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Kevin Brown wrote:
> beefier CPU setup would be in order. But in my (limited) experience,
> the disk subsystem is likely to be a bottleneck long before the CPU is
> in the general case, especially these days as disk subsystems haven't
> improved in perfor
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:00:03AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> got absolutely zero flak about their use of Postgres in connection
> with the .mobi bid, after having endured very substantial bombardment
Well, "absolutely zero" is probably overstating it, but Tom is right
that PostgreSQL is not the sor
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Atkins) would
write:
> As a bit of obPostgresql, though... While the registry for .org is
> run on Postgresql, the actual DNS is run on Oracle. That choice was
> driven by the availability of multi-master replication.
>
> Like many o
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 04:35:38PM +, Randolf Richardson wrote:
> Yes, indeed, that will be. My feeling is that Network Solutions
> actually manages the .NET and .COM registries far better than anyone else
> does, and when .ORG was switched away I didn't like the lack of flexibility
Randolf Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... the problem is that I have
> to create a separate account and password for each .ORG internet domain
> name now and can't just use one master account and password for all of
> them,
This is a registrar issue; if you don't like the user-interf
"Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote in pgsql.performance:
> I sometimes also think it's fun to point out that Postgresql
> bigger companies supporting it's software - like this one:
>
> http://www.fastware.com.au/docs/FujitsuSupportedPostgreSQLWhitePaper.pdf
>
> with $43 billion revenue -- ins
"[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane)" wrote in pgsql.performance:
> Randolf Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote in pgsql.performance:
>>> Randolf Richardson wrote:
>>>
While this doesn't exactly answer your question, I use this little
tidbit of inform
Randolf Richardson wrote:
> > The best DB platform is what they currently have, regardless of what
> > they have, unless there is a very compelling reason to switch.
> [sNip]
>
> Have you heard the saying "Nobody ever got fired for picking IBM?" It
> is one of those situations where if the
Randolf,
You probably won't want to hear this, but this decision likely has
nothing to do with brands, models, performance or applications.
You are up against a pro salesman who is likely very good at what he
does. Instead spewing all sorts of "facts" and statistics to your
client, the salesma
Randolf Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote in pgsql.performance:
>> Randolf Richardson wrote:
>>> While this doesn't exactly answer your question, I use this little
>>> tidbit of information when "selling" people on PostgreSQL.
>>> PostgreSQL was chosen
"[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 kn
"Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote in pgsql.performance:
> Randolf Richardson wrote:
>
>>> While this doesn't exactly answer your question, I use this little
>>> tidbit of information when "selling" people on PostgreSQL.
>>> PostgreSQL was chosen over Oracle as the database to handle all of
"[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Wiles)" wrote in pgsql.performance:
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 19:01:38 + (UTC)
> Randolf Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs.
>> Oracle
>> vs. Microsoft SQL Server. Recently someone
I sometimes also think it's fun to point out that Postgresql
bigger companies supporting it's software - like this one:
http://www.fastware.com.au/docs/FujitsuSupportedPostgreSQLWhitePaper.pdf
with $43 billion revenue -- instead of those little companies
like Mysql AB or Oracle.
:)
---
Randolf Richardson wrote:
While this doesn't exactly answer your question, I use this little
tidbit of information when "selling" people on PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL
was chosen over Oracle as the database to handle all of the .org TLDs
information. ...
Do you have a link for that informatio
Joe,
I appreciate your information, but it's not valid. Most people don't
need RAC or table partitioning. Many of the features in Oracle EE are
just not available in Postgresql at all, and many aren't available in
any version of SQL Server (table partitioning, bitmap indexes and
others). If you
Alex Turner wrote:
I appreciate your information, but it's not valid. Most people don't
need RAC or table partitioning.
From a small company perspective, maybe, but not in the least invalid
for larger companies.
Many of the features in Oracle EE are just not available in Postgresql at all,
and
Alex Turner wrote:
I'm not advocating that people switch to Oracle at all, It's still
much more expensive than Postgresql, and for most small and medium
applications Postgresql is much easier to manage and maintain. I
would just like to make sure people get their facts straight. I
worked for a co
This is somewhat correct, and somewhat unfair - bear in mind that
Postgresql doesn't have the equivalent features of Oracle enterprise
edition including RAC and Enterprise Manager.
You can use Oracle Personal edition for development, or pay a per
head cost of $149/user for your dev group for stan
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Don't forget your support contract cost, as well as licenses for each
of your servers: development, testing, QA, etc.
Is it really as "cheap" as 5K? I've heard that for any fairly modern
system, it's much more, but that may be wrong.
Sort of -- see:
http://oraclestore
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Oracle is not that expensive - standard one can be got for $149/user
> or $5k/CPU, and for most applications, the features in standard one
> are fine.
Don't forget your support contract cost, as well as licenses for each
of your servers: develo
Dave Cramer wrote:
I understand that but I have seen VM's crash.
This does bring up another point. Since postgresql is not threaded a
.NET pl would require a separate VM for each connection (unless you can
share the vm ?). One of the java pl's (pl-j) for postgres has dealt
with this issue.
For
OTECTED],
pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
tgresql.org Subject: Re:
[P
Connect to an external data system using a socket and propagate data
changes using a trigger... I've had to do this, and it sucks to be
stuck in Oracle!
Alex Turner
NetEconomist
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:29:52 -0600, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:46:01PM -0500
I understand that but I have seen VM's crash.
This does bring up another point. Since postgresql is not threaded a
.NET pl would require a separate VM for each connection (unless you can
share the vm ?). One of the java pl's (pl-j) for postgres has dealt
with this issue.
For a hundred connectio
Dave Cramer wrote:
Ok, so one use case is to select a large number of rows and do some
non-trivial operation on them.
I can see where getting the rows inside the server process ( ie some
procedural language ) thereby reducing the round trip overhead would be
beneficial. However how do you deal w
I'm curious, why do you think that's serious ? What do you really expect
Simply because I don't like VB non .NET, but C# is a much much better
language, and even VB.NET is decent.
to do in the stored procedure ? Anything of consequence will seriously
degrade performance if you select it in s
Oops! [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud) was seen spray-painting on a
wall:
>> The .NET Runtime will be a part of the next MS SQLServer engine. You
>> will be able to have C# as a pl in the database engine with the next
>> version of MSSQL. That certainly will be something to think about
Ok, so one use case is to select a large number of rows and do some
non-trivial operation on them.
I can see where getting the rows inside the server process ( ie some
procedural language ) thereby reducing the round trip overhead would be
beneficial. However how do you deal with the lack of con
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:46:01PM -0500, Alex Turner wrote:
> You sir are correct! You can't use perl in MS-SQL or Oracle ;).
On the other hand, PL/SQL is incredibly powerful, especially combined
with all the tools/utilities that come with Oracle. I think you'd be
hard-pressed to find too many
Dave Cramer wrote:
I'm curious, why do you think that's serious ? What do you really expect
to do in the stored procedure ? Anything of consequence will seriously
degrade performance if you select it in say a million rows.
I'm not sure what you mean by "select it in a million rows". I would
exp
I'm curious, why do you think that's serious ? What do you really expect
to do in the stored procedure ? Anything of consequence will seriously
degrade performance if you select it in say a million rows.
Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud wrote:
The .NET Runtime will be a part of the next MS SQLServer eng
Rosser Schwarz wrote:
while you weren't looking, Gary Doades wrote:
The .NET Runtime will be a part of the next MS SQLServer engine.
It won't be long before someone writes a procedural language binding
to PostgreSQL for Parrot [1]. That should offer us a handful or six
more languages that can be
while you weren't looking, Gary Doades wrote:
> The .NET Runtime will be a part of the next MS SQLServer engine.
It won't be long before someone writes a procedural language binding
to PostgreSQL for Parrot [1]. That should offer us a handful or six
more languages that can be used, including BAS
Currently there are two java pl's available for postgres.
Dave
Gary Doades wrote:
Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:46:01 -0500, Alex Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You sir are correct! You can't use perl in MS-SQL or Oracle ;).
Can you benefit from the luminous powe
The .NET Runtime will be a part of the next MS SQLServer engine. You
will be able to have C# as a pl in the database engine with the next
version of MSSQL. That certainly will be something to think about.
Ah, well, if it's C# (or even VB.NET) then it's serious !
I thought postgres h
Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:46:01 -0500, Alex Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You sir are correct! You can't use perl in MS-SQL or Oracle ;).
Can you benefit from the luminous power of Visual Basic as a pl in
MSSQL ?
The .NET Runtime will be a part of the next M
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:46:01 -0500, Alex Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You sir are correct! You can't use perl in MS-SQL or Oracle ;).
Can you benefit from the luminous power of Visual Basic as a pl in
MSSQL ?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6:
You sir are correct! You can't use perl in MS-SQL or Oracle ;).
Alex Turner
NetEconomist
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:42:00 -0600, Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:33:07 +0100
> Yann Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:07:55AM
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:33:07 +0100
Yann Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:07:55AM -0500, Alex Turner wrote:
> > Neither Oracle nor MS-SQL have the range of stored procedure
> > langauges that Postgresql supports.
>
> That is not true. Oracle uses PL/SQL for
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:07:55AM -0500, Alex Turner wrote:
> Neither Oracle nor MS-SQL have the range of stored procedure langauges
> that Postgresql supports.
That is not true. Oracle uses PL/SQL for its stored procedures and
M$-SQL does have a stored procedural language.
Regards,
Yann
Quick reply on this - I have worked with Oracle, MSSQL and Postgresql,
the first and last extensively.
Oracle is not that expensive - standard one can be got for $149/user
or $5k/CPU, and for most applications, the features in standard one
are fine.
Oracle is a beast to manage. It does alot more
Randolf Richardson wrote:
I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle
vs. Microsoft SQL Server. Recently someone has been trying to convince my
client to switch from SyBASE to Microsoft SQL Server (they originally wanted
to go with Oracle but have since fallen in
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 c
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 19:01:38 + (UTC)
Randolf Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs.
> Oracle
> vs. Microsoft SQL Server. Recently someone has been trying to
> convince my client to switch from SyBASE to Microsoft SQL
I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle
vs. Microsoft SQL Server. Recently someone has been trying to convince my
client to switch from SyBASE to Microsoft SQL Server (they originally wanted
to go with Oracle but have since fallen in love with Microsoft).
46 matches
Mail list logo
