Derek Rodner wrote:
>
> Sean Hull over at Database Journal has posted Part 2 of his database
> comparison.
>
>
>
> Here are links to both parts:
>
> Part 1 -
> http://www.databasejournal.com/features/oracle/article.php/3692566
>
> Part 2 -
> http://www.databasejournal.com/features/oracle/article.php/3703376
>
1) The article suggests that PostgreSQL does not have a cost-based
planner. We do (why vacuum analyze is important).
2) No real discusion of differences in stored procedures. In general, I
haven't found anything (including multi-set returning functions) you
can't do with PostgreSQL stored procedures that can be done on other
RDBMS's, and lots of things that can be done much easier in PostgreSQL.
3) If he really wants to show that Oracle is needed in some areas,
discussing parallelism in query execution would have been a good way to go.
4) The discussion of the transaction complaints as relate to MySQL
completely miss the point. It is not hte case that non-transactional
table types are completely useless, but rather that they can be created
by accident, silently, when a transactional table type is requested.
5) MySQL has a very different approach to security than does PostgreSQL
and Oracle. These are lumped together as a similarity when they really
should be treated as a set of profound differences.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
