Thread: Apparently the real competition is Sybase...
Taken from an article discussing recent additions to the osx platform (http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=877426788&fp=16&fpid=0) "OS X ships with two open source database managers, MySQL and PostGresQL. However, for large-scale databases, these free options may not suffice. To fill that gap, Sybase has ported its enterprise-grade DBMS, ASE (Adaptive Server Enterprise), to OS X. ASE 12.5 delivers the full range of capabilities found in Unix and Windows editions of Sybase's server, including scaling, data protection, graphical management, and a rich SQL command set. " To be honest I can't recall ever using it, but I can't imagine sybase having better scaling, data protection, or better SQL command set than postgresql. Anyone have the insider knowledge on what makes sybase so good or can we chalk this one up to the "clueless pundit" factor? Robert Treat -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Sybase is a full fledged rdbms. In the past it catered to rapid transaction processing, particularly in the financial community. I /assume/ it has good SQL support, data protection as well as good scaling. It also has/had powerbuilder as its tool set. I can get more accurate Sybase info from the horse's mouth if no one else has that info. -elein On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:51:16PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > Taken from an article discussing recent additions to the osx platform > (http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=877426788&fp=16&fpid=0) > > "OS X ships with two open source database managers, MySQL and > PostGresQL. However, for large-scale databases, these free options may > not suffice. To fill that gap, Sybase has ported its enterprise-grade > DBMS, ASE (Adaptive Server Enterprise), to OS X. ASE 12.5 delivers the > full range of capabilities found in Unix and Windows editions of > Sybase's server, including scaling, data protection, graphical > management, and a rich SQL command set. " > > To be honest I can't recall ever using it, but I can't imagine sybase > having better scaling, data protection, or better SQL command set than > postgresql. Anyone have the insider knowledge on what makes sybase so > good or can we chalk this one up to the "clueless pundit" factor? > > Robert Treat > -- > Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
On 21 Aug 2003, Robert Treat wrote: > To be honest I can't recall ever using it, but I can't imagine sybase > having better scaling, data protection, or better SQL command set than > postgresql. Anyone have the insider knowledge on what makes sybase so > good or can we chalk this one up to the "clueless pundit" factor? My employer is (and by association I am as well) a long-time user of Sybase for internal workflow, Peoplesoft integration, and e-commerce projects. When I first started knocking around with db-driven stuff for my own web projects about four years ago, I used MySQL. Then I started missing the stored procedures, triggers, transactions, foreign keys and the like that I was used to with Sybase. So I migrated to PostgreSQL. I've had very positive experiences with both Sybase and PostgreSQL. I've never had to administer Sybase though, so I can't speak to that. michael
I had Sybase on an SGI machine once. A Sybase engineer told me that if
I thought using a raw disk was going to be faster (instead of going through
the usual filesystem overhead) -- I would discover that it was slower.
This was around 1995. I appreciated the honesty of the engineer.
Of course, marketing would tell you raw disks were faster.
douglas
Robert Treat wrote:
>Taken from an article discussing recent additions to the osx platform
>(http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=877426788&fp=16&fpid=0)
>
>"OS X ships with two open source database managers, MySQL and
>PostGresQL. However, for large-scale databases, these free options may
>not suffice. To fill that gap, Sybase has ported its enterprise-grade
>DBMS, ASE (Adaptive Server Enterprise), to OS X. ASE 12.5 delivers the
>full range of capabilities found in Unix and Windows editions of
>Sybase's server, including scaling, data protection, graphical
>management, and a rich SQL command set. "
>
>To be honest I can't recall ever using it, but I can't imagine sybase
>having better scaling, data protection, or better SQL command set than
>postgresql. Anyone have the insider knowledge on what makes sybase so
>good or can we chalk this one up to the "clueless pundit" factor?
>
>Robert Treat
>
>
xzilla@users.sourceforge.net (Robert Treat) writes: > Taken from an article discussing recent additions to the osx platform > (http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=877426788&fp=16&fpid=0) > > "OS X ships with two open source database managers, MySQL and > PostGresQL. However, for large-scale databases, these free options > may not suffice. To fill that gap, Sybase has ported its > enterprise-grade DBMS, ASE (Adaptive Server Enterprise), to OS > X. ASE 12.5 delivers the full range of capabilities found in Unix > and Windows editions of Sybase's server, including scaling, data > protection, graphical management, and a rich SQL command set. " > > To be honest I can't recall ever using it, but I can't imagine > sybase having better scaling, data protection, or better SQL command > set than postgresql. Anyone have the insider knowledge on what makes > sybase so good or can we chalk this one up to the "clueless pundit" > factor? ASE is a more modern version of what Microsoft originally used to create their "enterprise" database product; for better or worse, it's certainly a mature, scalable database system. Until version 11, Sybase was strongly criticized for only supporting page locks, and not row locks. (SAP long refused to port their R/3 application to Sybase for this specific reason, and it was quite a big deal when Microsoft modified their version to support row locks BECAUSE OF THIS.) I expect that reality was that _proper_ Sybase application design involved pushing updates off to some central "TP manager-like" process which would make the locking issues disappear, but that is quite a different design than people _usually_ use, and certainly imposes on system architecture. It seems unlikely that Sybase ASE is either _spectacularly_ better or worse than PostgreSQL, but for those that feel more comfortable with there being a familiar-sounding company that could be sued, or with the notion that you'd have to pay money for anything that is worth anything, ASE would certainly be more "comfortable" than PostgreSQL. -- "cbbrowne","@","cbbrowne.com" http://cbbrowne.com/info/internet.html ((lambda (integer) (coerce (loop for i upfrom 0 by 8 below (integer-length integer) collect (code-char (ldb (byte 8 i) integer))) 'string)) 100291759904362517251920937783274743691485481194069255743433035)