l i n u x - u s e r s - g r o u p - o f - d a v i s
Next Meeting:
July 7: Social gathering
Next Installfest:
Latest News:
Jun. 14: June LUGOD meeting cancelled
Page last updated:
2002 Feb 01 15:38

The following is an archive of a post made to our 'vox mailing list' by one of its subscribers.

Report this post as spam:

(Enter your email address)
Re: [vox] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [vox] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle

Thanks Eric, this is good stuff.

The Oracle rep's pitch is the kind of techno-nonsense that works on 
gullible managers.  Some of what he said was true of Postgres a year or 
more ago -- not today.

Your arguments illustrate that Oracle's support of Linux makes that kind 
of selling more difficult.  I wonder if they are starting to regret that 

BTW I suspect that Oracle will seriously outperform PG for databases 
larger than 2-3 GB.  But maybe that's changed too.  It would be nice to 
see some recent benchmarks.

-- Rod

On Friday 01 February 2002 10:53, Eric Engelhard wrote:
> I thought I would share this reply to an Oracle rep who has been
> pestering our admin. I suppose I was mostly irritated by all of the open
> source bashing. Interesting in light of the recent events at Oracle.
> > I spoke to an Oracle system engineer currently working with Incyte
> > Genomics.  Incyte is using Oracle very heavily, from partitioning of
> > data for easier manageability, to running it in a parallel server
> > environment.  Oracle can handle databases in the Terrabyte range
> without
> > trouble.  In fact, Celera (another heavy Oracle user) has told Oracle
> > they expect to be in the Xa-byte range within 5 years.
> It is interesting that you use Incyte as an example. Isn't Gary Wolfe
> now the VP of bioinformatics at Large Scale Biology. I understand that
> Gary is a huge fan of PostgreSQL and Linux.
> The scalability and load balancing of PostgreSQL under Linux is
> wonderful, and all without the heavy fees associated with Oracle's
> payment schemes.
> Here is the truth about PostgreSQL limits:
> Maximum size for a database: unlimited
> Maximum size for a table: 64 TB on all operating systems
> Maximum size for a row: unlimited
> Maximum size for a field: 1GB
> Maximum number of rows in a table: unlimited
> Maximum number of columns in a table: 1600
> Maximum number of indexes on a table: unlimited
> PostgreSQL also has several useful features not offered by Oracle. Ask
> your engineer about blobs and the sequence data type.
> > Postgress is a file based system - it won't scale beyond 150 users as
> > performance will degrade rapidly. A row can't be more than 8K.  Row
> > level locking problems escalate with lots of users - you could have
> > table locks and users wouldn't even know it, compromising your data
> > integrity.  Database size is limited also. We don't know of a single
> > Postgress system in the Terrabyte range.
> These statements are misleading. Prior to this letter, didn't you tell
> Patrick that you hadn't even heard of PostgreSQL? You certainly have
> many of your fact wrong.
> >Most are in the 100MB range.
> Well gee, most databases are in the 100MB range (or less). This is a
> simple fact of database use.
> > And based on what we've seen in the industry, you'll get to the TB
> range
> > faster than you think.  You said yourself that you expect Sagres to
> get
> > to this range.
> >
> >
> > Where are you going to get support for this product?
> One of the beauties of open source is that help is all over the place.
> There are user's groups many sources of documantation on the web. If we
> feel that we have to have dedicated commercial support, then there is
> the RedHat PostgreSQL support: http://www.redhat.com/software/database/.
> Since it is open source, I am also free to read, alter, and recompile.
> You certainly can't do that with Oracle.
>   It would be a huge
> > business risk to bank on a shareware database to run your operation.
> Why exactly? How can you say that when Oracle is moving to use Linux
> exclusively? Please read the following:
> http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO67867,00.html
> {thanks to VOX for that one!]
> > Don't get me wrong, Postgress is great for small web sites and small
> > data sets, but it does not make sense to use it in your environment.
> > One thing is for sure - if you implement Postgress, the longer you
> wait
> > to replace it, the harder it will be.  Oracle will cost you more in
> hard
> > dollars up front, but your TCO will be lower in the long run, and your
> > risk will be drastically reduced.   The last thing you want is your
> > technology to limit your business growth.
> You have provided little evidence to support the previous claims.
> > I have nothing that directly compares Oracle to Postgress - we simply
> > don't run into them in serious business situations.  I'd recommend you
> > not allow your firm to make a decision based on the mindset that
> > Opensource is good enough for you.
> Why not? It is good enough for Oracle.
> [snip]
vox mailing list

LUGOD Group on LinkedIn
Sign up for LUGOD event announcements
Your email address:
LUGOD Group on Facebook
'Like' LUGOD on Facebook:

Hosting provided by:
Sunset Systems
Sunset Systems offers preconfigured Linux systems, remote system administration and custom software development.

LUGOD: Linux Users' Group of Davis
PO Box 2082, Davis, CA 95617
Contact Us

LUGOD is a 501(c)7 non-profit organization
based in Davis, California
and serving the Sacramento area.
"Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.

Sponsored in part by:
Sunset Systems
Who graciously hosts our website & mailing lists!