Re: [GENERAL] Re: [SQL] sql 92 support in postgres - Mailing list pgsql-general

I second the opinion that postgreSQL implements a very flexible and
extensive set of SQL functionality.

$2000 is chump change if the application is a mission critical one.  The
Costs of losing the data or downtime of the database easily exceed $2000 (in
probably the first minutes of downtime).  I think in your choice of
databases this is one of the more important factors to consider.  There are
also many competitors to Oracle too out there which you might want to
consider...

PostgreSQL is great especially since its free.  It fills the niche nicely
for low cost med intensity applications like small/med size business
e-commerce apps.  I don't think I would want to run something like a multi
national manufacturing firm's real time data acquisition system off of the
database.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross J. Reedstrom <reedstrm@rice.edu>
To: eric@broken.net <eric@broken.net>
Cc: PGSQL-General (E-mail) <pgsql-general@postgreSQL.org>
Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 2:22 PM
Subject: [GENERAL] Re: [SQL] sql 92 support in postgres


>Eric -
>I've redirected your question to the general list, since it seems to fit
>in there better than the sql list.  I think you're confusing mySQL's
>limitations with those of PostgreSQL (PG from here on) - PG does in fact
>support views, has for quite a while. They're even updateable. With each
>release, more and more of the SQL92 function set is implemented, and
>what's not can usually be worked around. I'm new to all this DB stuff,
>myself, but I haven't bumped up against limitations of the
>implementation yet - I hit the limits of my knowledge first!
>
>As to mySQL, I've never used it, but I understand it's a very fast, but
>limited, subset of SQL. The biggest drawback I see referenced is the
>lack of transaction support.
>
>My 2 cents,
>
>Ross
>
>Eric Enockson wrote:
>>
>>
>>         hi,
>>
>>         I am going to be implementing an online database and
>> was considering oracle on an ultra, until i checked the price
>> and 2,000 dollars, no way.  I have used mSQL and looked
>> at mySQL and now am aware of postgres and have heard that it
>> is the most robust and well used of the freeware databases.
>> Is this correct?  Also i am wondering about it's sql 92 support,
>> i see that it doesn't have views and some other things, but my
>> question is this.  For those of you who are using it, what is your
>> opinion of it's functionality sql wise?  Is it sufficient, do
>> wish that you had more?  If you could afford it would you rather
>> be using oracle?  I can afford oracle as i'm not going to be
>> paying, but 2000 just seems unresonable.  I don't want to
>> pay for suits and corporate planes, i just want to run software.
>>
>>         Any help, comments, advice would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>>         Eric Enockson
>
>--
>Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu>
>NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
>Computer and Information Technology Institute
>Rice University, 6100 S. Main St.,  Houston, TX 77005
>