X-Original-To: pgsql-benchmarks-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20193A535C
	for <pgsql-benchmarks-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sun,  9 Jan 2005 03:16:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 87117-08
	for <pgsql-benchmarks-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sun,  9 Jan 2005 03:16:40 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (floppy.pyrenet.fr [194.250.190.2])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1BC3A5250
	for <pgsql-benchmarks@postgresql.org>;
	Sun,  9 Jan 2005 03:16:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106)
	id B2003313E8; Sun,  9 Jan 2005 04:16:42 +0100 (MET)
From: Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca>
X-Newsgroups: pgsql.benchmarks
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 03:16:33 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <Xns95D8C5C3CEC15rr8xca@200.46.204.72>
References: <15457d31545360.154536015457d3@rdc-nyc.rr.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org
User-Agent: Xnews/06.08.25
X-Face: 
 +kXh]<cm0}l<Fvzd*?E]I7=Ug!X`>8'{:R`HzXla-aT~$s8a+C)k/B%RBr$_3sP`[kA}cl7#mD^9Z:oM`HpoC_kUEH['RZ*Ob%pz\ww^q&x)~zc`.xd]VQ4WN/3t2nS-<I>BvI%LF\B4:\9$EI:/|<)`?8I_;
	xzG@SOYFir/gk_eB4"Rl43-h%)8O0sR$b&Mp3XHR(0j=
X-Face-Author: Randolf Richardson (composed with Adobe Photoshop)
To: pgsql-benchmarks@postgresql.org
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200501/4
X-Sequence-Number: 26

"ycrevecoeur@nyc.rr.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.