-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> Certainly, but can one expect to get a realistic answer to an, "is
> Oracle fearing something" question on he PostgreSQL list? Or was it
> just a backhanded attempt at pushing the topic again? My vote is for
> the latter; it served no purpose other than to push the
> competitiveness topic again.
Well, I'm a cynic at heart, really. So there was no bad intend behind it.
And it was a nice comment, because I would base it on my personal
experiences with certain vendors, it wouldn't be near as nice.
The original question was about comparisons between PG and Oracle.
Now, I could answer this question from my personal experiences with the
product and support. That would be way more stronger worded than my
small cynic question.
Another thing, Joshua posted a guesstimate that PG can compete in 90-95%
cases with Oracle. Because Oracle insists on secrecy, I'm somehow
inclined to believe the side that talks openly. And while I don't like
to question Joshua's comment, I think he overlooked one set of problems,
namely the cases where Oracle is not able to compete with PG. It's hard
to quantify how many of these cases there are performance-wise, well,
because Oracle insists on that silly NDA, but there are clearly cases
where PG is superior.
Andreas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGds8WHJdudm4KnO0RAvb0AJ4gBec4yikrAOvDi5C3kc5NLGYteACghewU
PkfrnXgCRfZlEdeMA2DZGTE=
=BpUw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
