Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft - Mailing list pgsql-performance

"frank@wiles.org (Frank Wiles)" wrote in pgsql.performance:

> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 19:01:38 +0000 (UTC)
> Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca> wrote:
>
>>          I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs.
>>          Oracle
>> vs. Microsoft SQL Server.  Recently someone has been trying to
>> convince my client to switch from SyBASE to Microsoft SQL Server (they
>> originally wanted to go with Oracle but have since fallen in love with
>> Microsoft).  All this time I've been recommending PostgreSQL for cost
>> and stability (my own testing has shown it to be better at handling
>> abnormal shutdowns and using fewer system resources) in addition to
>> true cross-platform compatibility.
>>
>>          If I can show my client some statistics that PostgreSQL
>>          outperforms
>> these (I'm more concerned about it beating Oracle because I know that
>> Microsoft's stuff is always slower, but I need the information anyway
>> to protect my client from falling victim to a 'sales job'), then
>> PostgreSQL will be the solution of choice as the client has always
>> believed that they need a high-performance solution.
>>
>>          I've already convinced them on the usual price, cross-platform
>> compatibility, open source, long history, etc. points, and I've been
>> assured that if the performance is the same or better than Oracle's
>> and Microsoft's solutions that PostgreSQL is what they'll choose.
>
>   While this doesn't exactly answer your question, I use this little
>   tidbit of information when "selling" people on PostgreSQL.  PostgreSQL
>   was chosen over Oracle as the database to handle all of the .org TLDs
>   information.  While I don't believe the company that won was chosen
>   solely because they used PostgreSQL vs Oracle ( vs anything else ),
>   it does go to show that PostgreSQL can be used in a large scale
>   environment.

        Do you have a link for that information?  I've told a few people about
this and one PostgreSQL advocate (thanks to me -- they were going to be a
Microsoft shop before that) is asking.

>   Another tidbit you can use in this particular case: I was involved
>   in moving www.ljworld.com, www.lawrence.com, and www.kusports.com from
>   a Sybase backend to a PostgreSQL backend back in 2000-2001.  We got
>   roughly a 200% speed improvement at that time and PostgreSQL has only
>   improved since then.  I would be more than happy to elaborate on this
>   migration off list if you would like.  kusports.com gets a TON of
>   hits especially during "March Madness" and PostgreSQL has never been
>   an issue in the performance of the site.

        SyBase is better suited to the small projects in my opinion.  I have a
number of customers in the legal industry who have to use it because the
products they use have a proprietary requirement for it.  Fortunately it's
quite stable, and uses very little in the way of system resources, but
there is a license fee -- I'm not complaining at all, it has always been
working well for my clients.