Re: MS interview - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | mlw |
---|---|
Subject | Re: MS interview |
Date | |
Msg-id | 3B7BDF07.471B852D@mohawksoft.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | RE: MS interview (Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
> > > > > > Near the end he gets specifically asked about "Red Hat Database" as a > > > competitive threat, and he responds that he doesn't think anyone can match > > > their "investment" of "800 professionals" to work on SQL Server. > > > > > > Now I'm sure he didn't mean it to sound this way, but what I conclude from > > > that is that you fellows are all an order of magnitude or two more > > > productive than anyone at Microsoft :-). There is a basic reality to IT purchasing, Microsoft, Oracle, DB2, and to a lesser extent informix, and Sybase have an amount of "clout" that PostgreSQL does not. This clout isn't based on functionality so much as a big company that you can "sue." Nobody can sue these companies, of course, because the license agreements indicate that you can not. It is also based on support, "who will support you when you have trouble?" This is a quaint notion, but Oracle support is very expensive. The war for PostgreSQL, IMHO, is the same war that Linux fought and won over the last couple years, perception. Three years ago, it would have been risky for an IT guy to suggest, openly, that the infrastructure rely upon Linux. Today, while it isn't a forgone conclusion, you can raise that point in a meeting and not be ridiculed. People would consider it. I use PostgreSQL all the time, I think it is a great system, and you guys do great work. I am currently using Postgres for data analysis and as the presentation system for a text search and music ID engine. However, I would hesitate to move it to replace an Oracle or a DB2 because if Oracle or DB2 fail, everyone gets to blame the vendor, if PostgreSQL fails, everyone gets to blame me. IMHO, if The PostgreSQL team is serious about moving PostgreSQL out of the niche tool market and into the general SQL market place along side of Oracle, DB2, and MSSQL there is a lot of work to be done. Think about a website, where you have session management. 10,000 users online at one time each doing something that affects their account once a minute. That is about 166 updates a second on a session table. How often would you need to run vacuum for these operations to remain efficient? I submit that PostgreSQL will never be able to perform well in this environment as long as updates affect performance prior to a vacuum. Of late the 32 bit OID issue. If you have an OID wrap around, you have some probability that two records in a table could have the same OID. The probability, of course, is based on the number of tables and the distribution of activity on the tables, but it is likely to happen. Is this a problem? Then there is data security. Oracle is very good here. One can restore from their last backup, and using the REDO logs, bring the database to the point just before the crash. When I've had to answer this in meetings, I have to shrug and concede that point. (I have actually seen this work and it is cool.) Then there is the laundry list of functionality, queries across databases, functions like cube and rollup, etc. Believe me, I'm not knocking PostgreSQL, but if I am to recommend PostgreSQL in place of an Oracle or a DB2 or an MSSQL, it needs these things, even if they are never used, I have to convince people that PostgreSQL is "safe" to deploy.
pgsql-hackers by date: