On Sat, 11 May 2002 Troy.Campano@LibertyMutual.com wrote:
> Sorry, I meant how fast the data comes back from the SELECT statement, not
> display in a page.
As much as we all would want meaninfull comparisons, they are very
difficult to produce. In particular you would need to have simmilar
hardware to compare.
Based on a wildly inaccurate/impressice mini test I did, it seems Oracle
was faster with complex queries involving agregrates.
The machines did not have the same amount of memory, nor the same type of
disks, but the query was the same and the amount of rows and row sizes
were very close.
A better approach to what you want may be just to try postgreSQL with the
type of queries and if it is fast enough use it.
At least that test is a lot easier and much cheaper to do than to try with
Oracle. In particular consider the cost of an individual doing the test.
This is often overlooked. Even though I don't do much with Oracle based
on the little I have done, I find PostgreSQL a lot easier to learn, use,
configure and optimize.
We use it were I work as a reporting server and it works very well.
