On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 22:30, Joshua Kramer wrote:
> Last week, I got some DB2 literature from IBM. (I didn't ask for it, all
> I wanted was a CD with the software, but I guess they saw fit to send me
> the whole thing.) In this literature was a guide titled, "Why DB2 vs.
> Open Source Databases Sales Guide".
>
> The guide mostly concentrated on MySQL, but they did have one paragraph
> about PostgreSQL. They noted that SourceForge started off using
> PostgreSQL, but when the site grew it "crashed 4 to 5 times per day" under
> the increased workload as more people put their projects on SF. They of
> course then went on to praise how DB2 handles heavy workloads.
This little gem from last year explains how DB2 handles heavy workloads:
http://www.danskebank.com/link/ITreport20030403uk/$file/ITreport20030403uk.pdf
though doesn't mention DB2's pessimistic locking strategies which can
lead to poor database concurrency in real-world applications. (I'm
working on a project with exactly this issue now...) I think that a
balanced, informed view should be taken of strengths and weaknesses when
considering any products.
Let's not get too caught up in the FUD thing. FUD stands for Fear,
Uncertainty and Doubt...and thats all it is.
I note for example, that MySQL still have a benchmark page up that says
something like "but we couldn't run PostgreSQL because VACUUM had a
bug". Those things may be true, maybe not, but they are clearly both on
significantly older releases and so both can and should be ignored. They
can't be unsaid and arguing about it just makes you dance to their tune.
Most importantly, PostgreSQL users should be confident that if IBM is
saying bad things about PostgreSQL, its clearly on their radar - always
the best compliment. That means we're not far off having some IBM
staffers contributing regularly to the project...
The new release will clear away any of those earlier comments.
Best regards, Simon Riggs
