Thread: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
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.
Thanks in advance.
Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca> writes:
> I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle
> vs. Microsoft SQL Server.
Oracle prohibits their licensees from publishing independent benchmarks,
and I think the same is true for SQL Server. So you won't find anything
unbiased.
regards, tom lane
It really depends on the job at hand. If this is for a super critical environment and the database is gonna get pounded really hard then go with Oracle if youhave the budget otherwise PostgreSQL should do fine although Microsoft has nice development tools. http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/20743 ciao yc ----- Original Message ----- From: Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca> Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2005 4:19 pm Subject: [pgsql-benchmarks] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft > 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. > > Thanks in advance. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)----------------------- > ---- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster >
"ycrevecoeur@nyc.rr.com" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:
[sNip]
> It really depends on the job at hand.
>
> If this is for a super critical environment and the database is gonna
> get pounded really hard then go with Oracle if you have the budget
> otherwise PostgreSQL should do fine although Microsoft has nice
> development tools.
Unfortunately "nice development tools" has absolutely nothing to do
with "super critical" and "gonna get pounded really hard."
And with regards to the development tools, I actually find the
Microsoft tools not to my liking because they tend to keep the developer from
knowing what's really going on "under the hood" -- my preference is a
straight text editor to edit the source, compile/make, then see the results
(and only get into debugging as needed), thus fancy development tools are
mostly a waste of time for me (I'm happy with my text editor called "MEd").
> http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/20743
I'll take a look at that. Thanks for the link.
"tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane)" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:
> Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca> writes:
>
>> I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle
>> vs. Microsoft SQL Server.
>
> Oracle prohibits their licensees from publishing independent benchmarks,
> and I think the same is true for SQL Server. So you won't find anything
> unbiased.
I know for a fact that my client will see this as an admission of
weakness on the part of those two vendors (I assume you mean "Microsoft SQL
Server" when you use the generic term "SQL Server," despite the fact that
PostgreSQL, Oracle, MySQL, etc., are all SQL Servers as well).
Do you happen to have links to their license agreements? I'd like to
see this for myself, because if it is then I'm going to cry a song similar to
"bloody murder" for many of my friends and colleagues once verified.
Thanks, by the way. This will pretty much be the needed "nail in the
coffin" as far as my client is concerned -- if those two organizations are
that restrictive in their license agreements, then my client will be very
concerned that they won't be able to trust the vendor in other was as well.
"Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca>" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks: > "ycrevecoeur@nyc.rr.com" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks: [sNip] >> http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/20743 > > I'll take a look at that. Thanks for the link. The only flaw I noticed when skimming over that comparison chart is it incorrectly indicates that MySQL is free and has no license costs. This is not true for commercial use (I sent an eMail a few years ago to MySQL to confirm this after hearing and reading conflicting claims as such), and although this is better than Oracle's and Microsoft's offerings), it still isn't nearly as good as PostgreSQL's. (I feel it's important to note also that while Oracle's and Microsoft's solutions have historically had costs ranging in 5 figures, MySQL has typically been ranging in a mere 3 figures, thus making it easily affordable for many small businesses.) Overall, I'm happy with the information in that report, even though it is approximately 1 year old at this time.
Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca> writes: > "tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane)" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks: >> Oracle prohibits their licensees from publishing independent benchmarks, >> and I think the same is true for SQL Server. So you won't find anything >> unbiased. > Do you happen to have links to their license agreements? Google turns up the Oracle license right away: http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/htdocs/distlic.html?/technology/software/tech/windows/odpnet/utilsoft.html About halfway down in the text box you'll find a long list of "you may not"s: You may not: ... disclose results of any program benchmark tests without our prior consent; ... I didn't find the text of the SQL Server license at microsoft.com, but I didn't spend that much time looking either. (In the spirit of fairness: Oracle's claimed reason for this restriction is that they don't want to be bad-mouthed by people who don't know what a reasonable database benchmark is. I've seen enough bogus benchmarks that I can sympathize with that. Nonetheless, writing such a thing into your license agreement *is* an admission of weakness. If they had confidence in their product they could let the free market figure out which benchmarks mean something.) regards, tom lane
I wrote: > Google turns up the Oracle license right away: > http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/htdocs/distlic.html?/technology/software/tech/windows/odpnet/utilsoft.html Turns out this shorter link works just as well: http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/htdocs/distlic.html regards, tom lane
> > Oracle prohibits their licensees from publishing independent > > benchmarks, and I think the same is true for SQL Server. So you > > won't find anything unbiased. > > I know for a fact that my client will see this as an admission > of weakness on the part of those two vendors (I assume you mean > "Microsoft SQL Server" when you use the generic term "SQL Server," > despite the fact that PostgreSQL, Oracle, MySQL, etc., are all SQL > Servers as well). > > Do you happen to have links to their license agreements? I'd > like to see this for myself, because if it is then I'm going to cry > a song similar to "bloody murder" for many of my friends and > colleagues once verified. > > Thanks, by the way. This will pretty much be the needed "nail > in the coffin" as far as my client is concerned -- if those two > organizations are that restrictive in their license agreements Restrictive IN their license agreements? Hell, M$ and their buddies in the BSA don't even want you to SEE the license till after you have purchased the software! When Ed Foster, posing as a customer, tried to get a pre-purchase copy of a license agreement he failed. Microsoft's policy is that to see the license you must first purchase the product: http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/1/11/1939/04481 See how your client feels about that. Cheers, Steve
On Sun, 2005-01-09 at 03:20 +0000, Randolf Richardson wrote: > "tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane)" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks: > > > Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca> writes: > > > >> I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle > >> vs. Microsoft SQL Server. > > Think about it. You're not the first to want this, yet none are available. It must be because... > > Oracle prohibits their licensees from publishing independent benchmarks, > > and I think the same is true for SQL Server. So you won't find anything > > unbiased. I believe this has been so for many years with the Oracle licence. I don't recall seeing this with Microsoft, but then I am less familiar with the terms. > Do you happen to have links to their license agreements? I'd like to > see this for myself.... Easy, just pay the Ferryman... -- Best Regards, Simon Riggs
Also keep in mind that CA released Ingre (forerunner to Postgre), IBM released the improved code from Informix, and Borland firebird. So there are plenty of commercial grade RDBMS out there. Randolf Richardson 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. > > Thanks in advance. > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > >
Michael Dean wrote: > Also keep in mind that CA released Ingre (forerunner to Postgre), IBM > released the improved code from Informix, and Borland firebird. So What source code has IBM released? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > there are plenty of commercial grade RDBMS out there. > > Randolf Richardson 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. > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > >TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Michael Dean wrote:
>> Also keep in mind that CA released Ingre (forerunner to Postgre), IBM
>> released the improved code from Informix, and Borland firebird. So
> What source code has IBM released?
Cloudscape, a pure-Java SQL database (though I'm not sure that that's
what Michael meant).
regards, tom lane
"tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane)" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks: > I wrote: > >> Google turns up the Oracle license right away: >> http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/htdocs/distlic.html?/technolog >> y/software/tech/windows/odpnet/utilsoft.html > > Turns out this shorter link works just as well: > > http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/htdocs/distlic.html Thank you.
"scrawford@pinpointresearch.com (Steve Crawford)" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks: >>> Oracle prohibits their licensees from publishing independent >>> benchmarks, and I think the same is true for SQL Server. So you >>> won't find anything unbiased. >> >> I know for a fact that my client will see this as an admission >> of weakness on the part of those two vendors (I assume you mean >> "Microsoft SQL Server" when you use the generic term "SQL Server," >> despite the fact that PostgreSQL, Oracle, MySQL, etc., are all SQL >> Servers as well). >> >> Do you happen to have links to their license agreements? I'd >> like to see this for myself, because if it is then I'm going to cry >> a song similar to "bloody murder" for many of my friends and >> colleagues once verified. >> >> Thanks, by the way. This will pretty much be the needed "nail >> in the coffin" as far as my client is concerned -- if those two >> organizations are that restrictive in their license agreements > > Restrictive IN their license agreements? Hell, M$ and their buddies in > the BSA don't even want you to SEE the license till after you have > purchased the software! When Ed Foster, posing as a customer, tried > to get a pre-purchase copy of a license agreement he failed. > Microsoft's policy is that to see the license you must first purchase > the product: http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/1/11/1939/04481 > > See how your client feels about that. Excellent information! Although it's not a benchmark, it's exactly what I was hoping for! =D My customer's going to try to get a copy before-hand. He says that if they don't let him see it then they'll be "out of the running" for sure.
"tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane)" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> Michael Dean wrote:
>>
>>> Also keep in mind that CA released Ingre (forerunner to Postgre), IBM
>>> released the improved code from Informix, and Borland firebird. So
>>
>> What source code has IBM released?
>
> Cloudscape, a pure-Java SQL database (though I'm not sure that that's
> what Michael meant).
Interesting. Is it also free?
I've always thought that HSQLDB would be a good enough free 100% Java
database engine for very small stand-alone projects. Does CloudScape fit
into this realm, or would you consider it to be a higher grade?
HSQLDB - 100% Java database
http://hsqldb.sourceforge.net/