Just 512MB of ram?!
Holy cow!
I've always heard that Oracle has several features and capabilities that
PostGres lacks (and it is infinitely more expensive, too), but I just worked
6 years ago and for a short period with Oracle so
I don't know how to fully answer your question.
But, I believe that Oracle can run a single query in multiple processors,
something that AFAIK PostGres is still unable to (Correct me if I'm wrong).
Best,
Oliveiros
----- Original Message -----
From: "LWATCDR" <lwatcdr@gmail.com>
To: <pgsql-novice@postgresql.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:58 PM
Subject: [NOVICE] Not to start a flame war but what does Oracle have that
Postgresql does not?
>I have used Postgres a bit and actually use it as the back end for a
> program we use at my office. Truth is that it has worked so well that
> I have not had to mess with it for years at a time and then only to
> move to a new server or update. I have no experience with Oracle at
> all. Since I work with small datasets of only a few hundred thousand
> records to a million records and only a handful of tables Postgres
> does everything we need here. Right now it is supporting 50 users and
> running on a P3 600 with a single hard drive and 512 MB of ram. Yes
> the response time is "human instant".
> So I am wondering what features does Postgres lack to equal Oracle or
> DB2? This is more for my own satisfaction since I can not imagine any
> uses here that wouldn't run on a modern hexcore server with a few
> gigabytes of ram and a raid of SATA drives.
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-novice mailing list (pgsql-novice@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-novice
