Re: Democracy and organisation : let's make a - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Democracy and organisation : let's make a |
Date | |
Msg-id | 200206261322.00237.josh@agliodbs.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Democracy and organisation : let's make a ("Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Democracy and organisation : let's make a
(Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>)
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
Dann, > Totally false: > http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/benchmarks.asp The microsoft benchmarks aren't worth the screen space they take up. I don't consider these "evidence". I'm basing this on real experience of working with real production databases, not some idealized benchmark database directly admined by the SQL Server developers in Redmond. > False again. There is a problem if the clusted objects are added always > to the end of the file, or are constantly hitting the same data page. > This is often solved by creation of a hashed index that is clustered. > Then, the new writes are going to different pages. Depends on your level of write activity, and the size of the records. Clustered indexes work nicely for some tables. Not for others. > That's a configuration error. Yes? And you're going to tell me how to fix it? I've tinkered with the memory alloction in the SQL server config; the best I seem to be able to do is make SQL server crash instead of NT. > It's still a great product with better features than PostgreSQL. Once again, I disagree. It has *different* features, and if your focus is GUI tools or Win32 tool integration, you might say it's "better" than Postgres. But you'd have to admit that Postgres has some features and options that MS SQL can't match, such as SQL standard compliance, TOAST, hackable system tables, etc. Also, as I said, I've not worked much with SQL Server 2000. MS may have improved the product's reliability since 7.0. > I have worked as an MS SQL Server DBA (also database designer and > programmer along with just about anything else that could be done with > it) and am aware of the difficulties associated with SQL Server. It's a > very good product. Until it crashes. Unrecoverably. Don't scoff. I've had it happen, and the only thing that saved me was triplicate backup of the database. > Customer support is also a big issue comparing free database systems > with commercial ones. I know that there are a couple groups that do > this, but that genre of businesses do not have a good track record of > staying in business. MS, Oracle, and IBM will be there five years down > the road to help. If you can afford the fees. Personally, I've received more help from the PGSQL-SQL list than I ever got out of my $3000/year MSDN subscription. Also, PostgreSQL Inc. offers some great support. I've used it. > One area where there is a monumental difference is in license fees. For > a single corporation, it does not matter. But for someone who writes > database applications that will be delivered to thousands of customers, > it is an enormous advantage. Yup. -- -Josh Berkus
pgsql-hackers by date: