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 930033A539D
	for <pgsql-benchmarks-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sun,  9 Jan 2005 03:58:58 +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 89444-03
	for <pgsql-benchmarks-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sun,  9 Jan 2005 03:58:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (news.pyrenet.fr [194.250.190.2])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E253A5392
	for <pgsql-benchmarks@postgresql.org>;
	Sun,  9 Jan 2005 03:58:49 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106)
	id 090D231962; Sun,  9 Jan 2005 04:58:50 +0100 (MET)
From: Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca>
X-Newsgroups: pgsql.benchmarks
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 03:58:40 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <Xns95D8CCE81E473rr8xca@200.46.204.72>
References: <15457d31545360.154536015457d3@rdc-nyc.rr.com>
	<Xns95D8C5C3CEC15rr8xca@200.46.204.72>
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: 200501/6
X-Sequence-Number: 28

"Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca>" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:

> "ycrevecoeur@nyc.rr.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.