Re: [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle
Date
Msg-id 46780955.5000705@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle  (Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>)
List pgsql-advocacy
Chris Browne wrote:
> josh@globalherald.net (Joshua_Kramer) writes:
>>> The most important point is that third one, I think:
>>>  "any application where reliability requirements do not warrant
>>>  spending $1M to make it more reliable"
>>>
>>> Adopting ORAC and/or other HA technologies makes it necessary to
>>> spend a Big Pile Of Money, on hardware and the humans to administer
>>> it.
>> If I were CIO that did not follow the Postgres groups regularly, I
>> would take that to mean that Oracle is automatically more reliable
>> than PG because you can spend a BPOM to make it so.
>
> That would be incorrect.
>
> In cases where you *do not* spend the BPOM, there is not any
> particular evidence available to indicate that Oracle is, in any
> interesting way, more reliable than PostgreSQL.

No but there is perception which is quite a bit more powerful.

Joshua D. Drake

--

       === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
              http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/


pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: Josh
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Looking for Graphical people for PostgreSQL tradeshow signage