From: Brian Hurt <bhurt@janestcapital.com>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:01:55 -0400
Message-ID: <4676C893.9020901@janestcapital.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4676C19D.4040702@commandprompt.com>
References: <c50dbb0b0706180855v4b781f13m6e54c50aa3ab1dee@mail.gmail.com>
<36e682920706180910y519bc6a5h11e0ba56f45009ec@mail.gmail.com>
<4676B7C7.6020801@kostyrka.org>
<36e682920706181002i495f3fc3s2d55472e36a91b63@mail.gmail.com>
<4676BE31.6040701@commandprompt.com>
<op.tt4n3aldcigqcu@apollo13>
<4676C19D.4040702@commandprompt.com>
(cut down the reply-tos)
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 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.
>
Given how many bogus MySQL vr.s Postgresql benchmarks I've seen, where
Postgres is running untuned "out of the box", it's a sufficient reasons,
IMHO.
Brian
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: bhurt@janestcapital.com, pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
In-Reply-To: <4676C893.9020901@janestcapital.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox