Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft

It really depends on the job at hand.

If this is for a super critical environment and the database is gonna get pounded really hard then go with Oracle if you have the budget otherwise PostgreSQL should do fine although Microsoft has nice development tools.

http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/20743

ciao
yc

----- Original Message -----
From: Randolf Richardson <rr(at)8x(dot)ca>
Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2005 4:19 pm
Subject: [pgsql-benchmarks] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft

> 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).
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)-----------------------
> ----
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

"ycrevecoeur(at)nyc(dot)rr(dot)com" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:

[sNip]
> It really depends on the job at hand.
>
> If this is for a super critical environment and the database is gonna
> get pounded really hard then go with Oracle if you have the budget
> otherwise PostgreSQL should do fine although Microsoft has nice
> development tools.

Unfortunately "nice development tools" has absolutely nothing to do
with "super critical" and "gonna get pounded really hard."

And with regards to the development tools, I actually find the
Microsoft tools not to my liking because they tend to keep the developer from
knowing what's really going on "under the hood" -- my preference is a
straight text editor to edit the source, compile/make, then see the results
(and only get into debugging as needed), thus fancy development tools are
mostly a waste of time for me (I'm happy with my text editor called "MEd").

> http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/20743

I'll take a look at that. Thanks for the link.

"Randolf Richardson <rr(at)8x(dot)ca>" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:

> "ycrevecoeur(at)nyc(dot)rr(dot)com" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:
[sNip]
>> http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/20743
>
> I'll take a look at that. Thanks for the link.

The only flaw I noticed when skimming over that comparison chart is it
incorrectly indicates that MySQL is free and has no license costs. This is
not true for commercial use (I sent an eMail a few years ago to MySQL to
confirm this after hearing and reading conflicting claims as such), and
although this is better than Oracle's and Microsoft's offerings), it still
isn't nearly as good as PostgreSQL's.

(I feel it's important to note also that while Oracle's and Microsoft's
solutions have historically had costs ranging in 5 figures, MySQL has
typically been ranging in a mere 3 figures, thus making it easily affordable
for many small businesses.)

Overall, I'm happy with the information in that report, even though it
is approximately 1 year old at this time.