Thread: Re: [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
On 6/18/07, David Tokmatchi <david.tokmatchi@gmail.com> wrote: > Scalability ? Performance? Benchmark ? Availability ? Architecture ? > Limitation : users, volumes ? Resouces needed ? Support ? Aside from the Wikipedia database comparison, I'm not aware of any direct PostgreSQL-to-Oracle comparison. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 It's even harder, as Oracle disallows publishing benchmark figures in their license. As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? Andreas Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 6/18/07, David Tokmatchi <david.tokmatchi@gmail.com> wrote: >> Scalability ? Performance? Benchmark ? Availability ? Architecture ? >> Limitation : users, volumes ? Resouces needed ? Support ? > > Aside from the Wikipedia database comparison, I'm not aware of any > direct PostgreSQL-to-Oracle comparison. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdrfHHJdudm4KnO0RAqKQAJ96t7WkLG/VbqkWTW60g6QC5eU4HgCfShNd o3+YPVnPJ2nwXcpi4ow28nw= =1CwN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org> wrote: > As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question? -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org> wrote:
>> As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing?
>
> As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this
> type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question?
Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that ask?
1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti-proprietary
which is perfectly legitimate.
2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a
database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people
would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many
thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars.
Sincerely,
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/
PFC wrote: > >> 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a >> database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where >> people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, >> many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. > > Oracle also fears benchmarks made by people who don't know how to > tune Oracle properly... Yes that is one argument that is made (and a valid one) but it is assuredly not the only one that can be made, that would be legitimate. Joshua D. Drake > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > -- === 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/
On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that ask? As many times as necessary. Funny how the anti-proprietary-database arguments can continue forever and no one brings up the traditional RTFM-like response of, "hey, this was already discussed in thread XXX, read that before posting again." > 1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti-proprietary > which is perfectly legitimate. As long as closed-mindedness is legitimate, sure. > 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a > database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people > would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many > thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. They may well have a lot to fear, but that doesn't mean they do; anything statement in that area is pure assumption. I'm in no way saying we can't compete, I'm just saying that the continued closed-mindedness and inside-the-box thinking only serves to perpetuate malcontent toward the proprietary vendors by turning personal experiences into sacred-mailing-list gospel. All of us have noticed the anti-MySQL bashing based on problems with MySQL 3.23... Berkus and others (including yourself, if I am correct), have corrected people on not making invalid comparisons against ancient versions. I'm only doing the same where Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft are concerned. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that ask?
>
> As many times as necessary. Funny how the anti-proprietary-database
> arguments can continue forever and no one brings up the traditional
> RTFM-like response of, "hey, this was already discussed in thread XXX,
> read that before posting again."
Yeah funny how you didn't do that ;) (of course neither did I).
>
>> 1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti-proprietary
>> which is perfectly legitimate.
>
> As long as closed-mindedness is legitimate, sure.
It isn't closed minded to consider anti-proprietary a bad thing. It is
an opinion and a valid one. One that many have made part of their lives
in a very pro-commercial and profitable manner.
>
>> 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a
>> database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people
>> would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many
>> thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars.
>
> They may well have a lot to fear, but that doesn't mean they do;
> anything statement in that area is pure assumption.
95% of life is assumption. Some of it based on experience, some of it
based on pure conjecture, some based on all kinds of other things.
>
> I'm in no way saying we can't compete, I'm just saying that the
> continued closed-mindedness and inside-the-box thinking only serves to
> perpetuate malcontent toward the proprietary vendors by turning
> personal experiences into sacred-mailing-list gospel.
It is amazing how completely misguided you are in this response. I
haven't said anything closed minded. I only responded to your rather
antagonistic response to a reasonably innocuous question of: "As a
cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? "
It is a good question to ask, and a good question to discuss.
>
> All of us have noticed the anti-MySQL bashing based on problems with
> MySQL 3.23... Berkus and others (including yourself, if I am correct),
> have corrected people on not making invalid comparisons against
> ancient versions. I'm only doing the same where Oracle, IBM, and
> Microsoft are concerned.
I haven't seen any bashing going on yet. Shall we start with the closed
mindedness and unfairness of per cpu license and support models?
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/
On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Yeah funny how you didn't do that ;) (of course neither did I). I agree, an oops on my part :) > It is amazing how completely misguided you are in this response. I > haven't said anything closed minded. I only responded to your rather > antagonistic response to a reasonably innocuous question of: "As a > cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? " I wasn't responding to you, just to the seemingly closed-mindedness of the original question/statement. We're all aware of the reasons, for and against, proprietary system licenses prohibiting benchmarking. > It is a good question to ask, and a good question to discuss. Certainly, but can one expect to get a realistic answer to an, "is Oracle fearing something" question on he PostgreSQL list? Or was it just a backhanded attempt at pushing the topic again? My vote is for the latter; it served no purpose other than to push the competitiveness topic again. > I haven't seen any bashing going on yet. Shall we start with the closed > mindedness and unfairness of per cpu license and support models? Not preferably, you make me type too much :) -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
(cut down the reply-tos) Joshua D. Drake wrote: > PFC wrote: > >> >>> 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a >>> database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where >>> people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, >>> many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. >> >> >> Oracle also fears benchmarks made by people who don't know how to >> tune Oracle properly... > > > Yes that is one argument that is made (and a valid one) but it is > assuredly not the only one that can be made, that would be legitimate. > Given how many bogus MySQL vr.s Postgresql benchmarks I've seen, where Postgres is running untuned "out of the box", it's a sufficient reasons, IMHO. Brian
All,
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:50:22PM +0200, Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
[something]
It would appear that this was the flame-fest that was predicted.
Particularly as this has been copied to five lists. If you all want
to have an argument about what Oracle should or should not do, could
you at least limit it to one list?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Everything that happens in the world happens at some place.
--Jane Jacobs
> 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a
> database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people
> would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many
> thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars.
Oracle also fears benchmarks made by people who don't know how to tune
Oracle properly...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 PFC wrote: > >> 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a >> database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where >> people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, >> many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. > > Oracle also fears benchmarks made by people who don't know how to > tune Oracle properly... Well, bad results are as interesting as good results. And this problems applies to all other databases. Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdsXdHJdudm4KnO0RArTkAKCZs6ht4z0lb2zHtr5MfXj8CsTZdQCgmwE5 JAD6Hkul1iIML42GO1vAM0c= =FMRt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org> wrote: >> As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? > > As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this > type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question? > Well, my experience when working with certain DBs is much like I had some years ago, when I was forced to work with different SCO Unix legacy boxes. "Why do I have to put up with this silliness?", and with databases there is no way to get a sensible tool set by "shopping around" and installing GNU packages en masse :( Furthermore not being allowed to talk about performance is a real hard misfeature, like DRM. Consider: 1.) Performance is certainly an important aspect of my work as a DBA. 2.) Gaining experience as a DBA is not trivial, it's clearly a discipline that cannot be learned from a book, you need experience. As a developer I can gain experience on my own. As a DBA, I need some nice hardware and databases that are big enough to be nontrivial. 3.) The above points make it vital to be able to discuss my experiences. 4.) Oracle's license NDA makes exchanging experience harder. So as an endeffect, the limited number of playing grounds (#2 above) keeps hourly rates for DBAs high. Oracle's NDA limits secondary knowledge effects, so in effect it keeps the price for Oracle knowhow potentially even higher. Or put bluntly, the NDA mindset benefits completly and only Oracle, and is a clear drawback for customers. It makes Oracle-supplied consultants "gods", no matter how much hot air they produce. They've got the benefit of having internal peer knowledge, and as consumer there is not much that I can do counter it. I'm not even allowed to document externally the pitfalls and experiences I've made, so the next poor sob will walk on the same landmine. Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdsT5HJdudm4KnO0RAoASAJ9b229Uhsuxn9qGfU5I0QUfTC/dqQCfZK/b 65XQFcc0aRBVptxW5uzLejY= =UIF6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jonah H. Harris wrote: > > All of us have noticed the anti-MySQL bashing based on problems with > MySQL 3.23... Berkus and others (including yourself, if I am correct), > have corrected people on not making invalid comparisons against > ancient versions. I'm only doing the same where Oracle, IBM, and > Microsoft are concerned. > My, my, I fear my asbestos are trying to feel warm inside ;) Well, there is not much MySQL bashing going around. And MySQL 5 has enough "features" and current MySQL AB support for it is so "good", that there is no need to bash MySQL based on V3 problems. MySQL5 is still a joke, and one can quite safely predict the answers to tickets, with well over 50% guess rate. (Hint: I don't consider the answer: "Redo your schema" to be a satisfactory answer. And philosophically, the query optimizer in MySQL is near perfect. OTOH, considering the fact that many operations in MySQL still have just one way to execute, it's easy to choose the fastest plan, isn't it *g*) Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdsgCHJdudm4KnO0RAg2oAKCdabTyQCcK8eC0+ErVJLlX59nNjgCfQjaO hhfSxBoESyCU/mTQo3gbQRM= =RqB7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 6/18/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote: > It would appear that this was the flame-fest that was predicted. > Particularly as this has been copied to five lists. If you all want > to have an argument about what Oracle should or should not do, could > you at least limit it to one list? Yeah, Josh B. asked it to be toned down to the original list which should've been involved. Which I think should be pgsql-admin or pgsql-advocacy... your thoughts? I think the Oracle discussion is over, David T. just needs URL references IMHO. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jonah H. Harris wrote: > Certainly, but can one expect to get a realistic answer to an, "is > Oracle fearing something" question on he PostgreSQL list? Or was it > just a backhanded attempt at pushing the topic again? My vote is for > the latter; it served no purpose other than to push the > competitiveness topic again. Well, I'm a cynic at heart, really. So there was no bad intend behind it. And it was a nice comment, because I would base it on my personal experiences with certain vendors, it wouldn't be near as nice. The original question was about comparisons between PG and Oracle. Now, I could answer this question from my personal experiences with the product and support. That would be way more stronger worded than my small cynic question. Another thing, Joshua posted a guesstimate that PG can compete in 90-95% cases with Oracle. Because Oracle insists on secrecy, I'm somehow inclined to believe the side that talks openly. And while I don't like to question Joshua's comment, I think he overlooked one set of problems, namely the cases where Oracle is not able to compete with PG. It's hard to quantify how many of these cases there are performance-wise, well, because Oracle insists on that silly NDA, but there are clearly cases where PG is superior. Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGds8WHJdudm4KnO0RAvb0AJ4gBec4yikrAOvDi5C3kc5NLGYteACghewU PkfrnXgCRfZlEdeMA2DZGTE= =BpUw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:16:56PM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > pgsql-advocacy... your thoughts? I've picked -advocacy. > > I think the Oracle discussion is over, David T. just needs URL references > IMHO. I don't think we can speak about Oracle; if we were licenced, we'd be violating it, and since we're not, we can't possibly know about it, right ;-) But there are some materials about why to use Postgres on the website: http://www.postgresql.org/about/advantages A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do sir? --attr. John Maynard Keynes
PFC wrote: > >> 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a >> database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where >> people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, >> many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. > > Oracle also fears benchmarks made by people who don't know how to > tune Oracle properly... > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match > Then Oracle fears its users, which explains the "no-benchmark" policy, which I cannot see any PR honk being able to spin that in any way that doesn't make Oracle look like it's hiding its head in the sand. -- The NCP Revue -- http://www.ncprevue.com/blog
On 6/18/07, John Meyer <john.l.meyer@gmail.com> wrote: > Then Oracle fears its users, which explains the "no-benchmark" policy, > which I cannot see any PR honk being able to spin that in any way that > doesn't make Oracle look like it's hiding its head in the sand. The humor I see in constant closed-minded presumptions is slowly fading. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 6/18/07, John Meyer <john.l.meyer@gmail.com> wrote: >> Then Oracle fears its users, which explains the "no-benchmark" policy, >> which I cannot see any PR honk being able to spin that in any way that >> doesn't make Oracle look like it's hiding its head in the sand. > > The humor I see in constant closed-minded presumptions is slowly fading. > This isn't even a straight out slam at Oracle. My degree comes in mass communications, and I cannot understand how anybody could shake the perception that Oracle is afraid of open, independent investigations of its programs. Let's take this at the most beneficial angle that we can, and that is that Oracle has seen too many people run their programs straight into the ground with some rather lousy benchmarking. If that's the case, then the solution is not to bar each and every bench mark out there, it is to publish the methodologies to properly tune an Oracle installation. It is not to attempt to strangle conversation. -- The NCP Revue -- http://www.ncprevue.com/blog
Can we please trim this down to just advocacy? On Jun 18, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Jonah H. Harris wrote: >> On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org> wrote: >>> As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? >> As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this >> type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question? > > Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that > ask? > > 1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti- > proprietary which is perfectly legitimate. > > 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of > a database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where > people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, > many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. > > Sincerely, > > 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/ > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that > your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
On 6/19/07, Jim Nasby <decibel@decibel.org> wrote: > Can we please trim this down to just advocacy? Could you please verify that we hadn't before replying to almost 24-hour old mail? -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 00:05, John Meyer wrote:
> Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> > On 6/18/07, John Meyer <john.l.meyer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Then Oracle fears its users, which explains the "no-benchmark" policy,
> >> which I cannot see any PR honk being able to spin that in any way that
> >> doesn't make Oracle look like it's hiding its head in the sand.
> >
> > The humor I see in constant closed-minded presumptions is slowly fading.
>
> This isn't even a straight out slam at Oracle. My degree comes in mass
> communications, and I cannot understand how anybody could shake the
> perception that Oracle is afraid of open, independent investigations of
> its programs.
> Let's take this at the most beneficial angle that we can, and that is
> that Oracle has seen too many people run their programs straight into
> the ground with some rather lousy benchmarking. If that's the case,
> then the solution is not to bar each and every bench mark out there, it
> is to publish the methodologies to properly tune an Oracle installation.
> It is not to attempt to strangle conversation.
You do realize that not everyone who publishes a benchmark will actually
*want* to do a fair comparison, right?
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
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.
How many CIOs check into the PostgreSQL advocacy group, just to pick
out one article?
> Let's ask a different question. If you take BPOM / 2, and instead of
> buying Oracle, hire consultants to work on a PG solution, could the PG
> solution achieve the same reliability as Oracle? Would it take the
> same amount of time? Or heck, spend the full BPOM on hardening PG
> against failure - could PG achieve that reliability?
>
> Or, by spending BPOM for Oracle strictly to get that reliability, are
> you only buying "enterpriseyness" (i.e. someone to blame and the
> ability to one-up a buddy at the golf course)?
The major difference, as far as I can see, is that if you spend BPOM
on Oracle, then you can take advantage of some High Availability
features for Oracle that haven't been implemented for PostgreSQL.
On the one hand...
- If you spend LESS THAN the BPOM, then you don't get anything.
On the other hand...
- If you spend SPOM (Some Pile Of Money ;-)) on hardening a PostgreSQL
instance, you may be able to get some improved reliability, but not in
the form of specific features (e.g. - ORAC) that 'smell like a
product.'
On the gripping hand...
- It is not entirely clear to what degree you can be certain to be
getting anything better than "enterpriseyness."
For instance, if your disk array blows up (or has a microcode bug
that makes it scribble randomly on disk), then that is liable to
destroy your database, irrespective of what other technologies are
in use as a result of spending the BPOM.
In other words, some risks are certain to be retained, and fancy
DBMS features can't necessarily mitigate them.
--
output = reverse("ofni.secnanifxunil" "@" "enworbbc")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/wp.html
"We are all somehow dreadfully cracked about the head, and sadly need
mending." --/Moby-Dick/, Ch 17
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 13:02 -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org> wrote: > > As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? > > As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this > type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question? > As a nudist, I think I have to answer, "About every 9 weeks, it would seem". Andy
I don't want to add gas to the flamewar, but I gotta ask. What is in the the 90 to 95% referred to in this email. Carol On Jun 18, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Jonah H. Harris wrote: >> On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org> wrote: >>> As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? >> As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this >> type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question? > > Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that > ask? > > 1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti- > proprietary which is perfectly legitimate. > > 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of > a database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where > people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, > many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars. > > Sincerely, > > 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/ > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that > your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Andrew Kelly wrote: > On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 13:02 -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: >> On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org> wrote: >>> As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? >> As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this >> type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question? >> > > As a nudist, I think I have to answer, "About every 9 weeks, it would > seem". Jeese! You could have warned us to shield our eyes! -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Andrew Kelly wrote: > On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 13:02 -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: >> On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org> wrote: >>> As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? >> As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this >> type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question? >> > > As a nudist, I think I have to answer, "About every 9 weeks, it would > seem". Jeese! You could have forwarned us to shut our eyes! -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
John Meyer wrote:
>>> make Oracle look like it's hiding its head in the sand.
One of my grammatical bugbears is the misuse of "its" and "it's". I got quite
the thrill from seeing their correct use both within the same phrase. Thank you.
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>> The humor I see in constant closed-minded presumptions is slowly fading.
Instead of engaing in /ad hominem/ attack ("you're close-minded, therefore
your assertions are false" - /non sequitur/ - even close-minded assertions can
be true irrespective of the level of presumption and completely irrespective
of your attempt to spin them as jokes) why not address the claim on its merits?
John Meyer wrote:
> This isn't even a straight out slam at Oracle. My degree comes in mass
> communications, and I cannot understand how anybody could shake the
> perception that Oracle is afraid of open, independent investigations of
> its programs.
Not that anecdotal evidence constitutes proof, but I certainly perceive their
closed-mouthed and restrictive policy in that light. Why hide the facts
unless you have something to hide?
> Let's take this at the most beneficial angle that we can, and that is
> that Oracle has seen too many people run their programs straight into
> the ground with some rather lousy benchmarking. If that's the case,
> then the solution is not to bar each and every bench mark out there, it
> is to publish the methodologies to properly tune an Oracle installation.
> It is not to attempt to strangle conversation.
Openness promotes progress and growth - it's true in accounting, legal
systems, software development and marketing, not to say everyday living.
Oracle would only benefit from an open conversation.
--
Lew
> That would be incorrect. Factually, you are correct that it's incorrect. I'm talking about the perception. > How many CIOs check into the PostgreSQL advocacy group, just to pick > out one article? Few that I know of, which makes my point stronger and brings us to this: > instance, you may be able to get some improved reliability, but not in > the form of specific features (e.g. - ORAC) that 'smell like a > product.' So, on one hand you can pay BPOM to Oracle for all the enterpriseyness and fresh NOS (New Oracle Smell) money can buy. Or... > In other words, some risks are certain to be retained, and fancy > DBMS features can't necessarily mitigate them. ...you can pay SSPOM (Some Smaller Pile Of Money) to a PG vendor to harden PG. You won't get the enterprisey NOS, but the end result will be the same. The question then becomes, what are the second-level costs? (i.e., will high-reliability project X complete just as fast by hardening PG as it would by using Oracle's built-in features? What are the costs to train Oracle DBA's on PG - or what are the costs of their downtime while they learn PG?) Cheers, -J
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/
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:22:17AM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
> 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.
I hate to say this, but as true as the above is, it has very close to
zero relevance to the way most senior managers make decisions.
It appears to suppose that the way decisions are usually made is
something like this: 1. Establish the problem; 2. Identify what is
needed to solve the problem; 3. Evaluate what available technologies
meet the requirements established in step 2.
The _actual_ way corporate decisions are made is mostly gut feel. The
simple truth is that most senior managers, even CIOs and CTOs, are
usually long past the period where technical detail is meaningful to
them. They do not -- and probably should not -- know many of the
details of the problems they are nevertheless responsible for
solving. Instead, they have to weigh costs and benefits, on the
basis of poor evidence and without enough time to get the proper
evidence. Geeks who hang out here would probably be appalled at the
slapdash sort of evidence that undergirds large numbers of big
technical decisions. But CIOs and CTOs aren't evaluating technology;
they're mitigating risk.
Once you understand that risk mitigation is practically the only job
they have, then buying Oracle in most cases is a no-brainer. It has
the best reputation, and has all these features (some of which you
might not buy, but _could_ if your Oracle rep were to tell you it
would solve some problem you may or may not have) to protect you.
So, the only other calculation that should enter the picture is how
much money you have to spend, and how risky it would be to tie that
up in Oracle licenses. In some cases, that turns out to be too risky,
and Postgres becomes a viable choice. It's only exceptionally
visionary senior managers who operate in other ways.
There are two important consequences of this. One is that competing
with MySQL is worth it, because MySQL is often regarded as the thing
one uses to "go cheap" when one can't afford Oracle. Those people
will move from MySQL to Oracle as soon as practical, because their
DBAs often are appalled at the way MySQL works; they might get
addicted to the excellent features of PostgreSQL, though. The second
is that marketing to management by using arguments, listing lots of
technical detail and features, and the like, will never work.
They'll ignore such cluttered and crowded brochures, because they
don't deal in technical detail. We have to make PostgreSQL a
low-risk choice for them.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The plural of anecdote is not data.
--Roger Brinner
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:22:17AM -0400, Chris Browne wrote: > > 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. > > I hate to say this, but as true as the above is, it has very close to > zero relevance to the way most senior managers make decisions. [...] I also hate to say this, but I fully agree with whatever you wrote in this mail. [...] > much money you have to spend, and how risky it would be to tie that > up in Oracle licenses. In some cases, that turns out to be too risky, > and Postgres becomes a viable choice. It's only exceptionally > visionary senior managers who operate in other ways. Yes, maybe 10 out of 100. Likely less. [...] > addicted to the excellent features of PostgreSQL, though. The second > is that marketing to management by using arguments, listing lots of > technical detail and features, and the like, will never work. > They'll ignore such cluttered and crowded brochures, because they > don't deal in technical detail. We have to make PostgreSQL a > low-risk choice for them. I wonder if this is something which really is a job of the core team or community (I think of the 'traditional' PG users who are more technically focussed and maybe not enthusiastic about too much CIO/CTO flavored communication). Actually this kind of communication looks to me like to be perfectly done by commercial PG vendors? Anastasios
Attachment
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:57:58PM +0200, Anastasios Hatzis wrote:
> focussed and maybe not enthusiastic about too much CIO/CTO flavored
> communication). Actually this kind of communication looks to me like to be
> perfectly done by commercial PG vendors?
Well, sure, but I sort of assume that the -advocacy list has
subscribed to it only people who are interested in promoting
PostgreSQL. So I figure that this group probably needs to think
about the audiences for its output; and C*O people make up one of
them.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace.
--Philip Greenspun
Andrew Kelly wrote: > On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 13:02 -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > >> On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <andreas@kostyrka.org> wrote: >> >>> As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing? >>> >> As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this >> type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question? >> >> > > As a nudist, I think I have to answer, "About every 9 weeks, it would > seem". As a surrealist, I'd have to say purple.