Thread: PostgreSQL x Oracle

Hi all,

I have been using PostgreSQL to do everything I need, but people always
ask me ``why PostgreSQL''.

I use to tell that PostgreSQL is powerfull, but when they ask me to
compare PostgreSQL with Oracle I get myself in troubles.

I don't use Oracle!

What does Oracle have that Postgresql doesn't have? Why does people
continue thinking that Oracle is better than PostgreSQL?

How can I compare it??

See ya,

Marcelo Pereira

-- Remember that only God and ^[:w saves.
        __
       (_.\           © Marcelo Pereira     |
        / / ___       marcelo@pereira.com   |
       / (_/ _ \__    [Math|99]-IMECC       |
_______\____/_\___)___Unicamp_______________/

hmmm

when its come to small dbs I definitely recommend postgres because its free
and flexible.

I never used Oracle but I wonder form time to time if need too, in big dbs
or ones that are complex ( rules / foreign keys ... ) I find postgres
somewhat slow in inserting / updating.

also I heard that you cant do transaction within transaction in postgres
while in Oracle you can. ( im not sure if its true at all )

so postgres is still far away to really equal with Oracle but it cost
nothing and work nicely :)

does any one know about comparison article of oracle vs postgres when it
come to speed over complex queries ?

--------------------------
Canaan Surfing Ltd.
Internet Service Providers
Ben-Nes Michael - Manager
Tel: 972-4-6991122
Fax: 972-4-6990098
http://sites.canaan.co.il
--------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcelo Pereira" <gandalf@sum.desktop.com.br>
To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 6:59 PM
Subject: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL x Oracle


Hi all,

I have been using PostgreSQL to do everything I need, but people always
ask me ``why PostgreSQL''.

I use to tell that PostgreSQL is powerfull, but when they ask me to
compare PostgreSQL with Oracle I get myself in troubles.

I don't use Oracle!

What does Oracle have that Postgresql doesn't have? Why does people
continue thinking that Oracle is better than PostgreSQL?

How can I compare it??

See ya,

Marcelo Pereira

-- Remember that only God and ^[:w saves.
        __
       (_.\           © Marcelo Pereira     |
        / / ___       marcelo@pereira.com   |
       / (_/ _ \__    [Math|99]-IMECC       |
_______\____/_\___)___Unicamp_______________/


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

> What does Oracle have that Postgresql doesn't have? Why does people
> continue thinking that Oracle is better than PostgreSQL?
>
> How can I compare it??
>

Actually, your Oracle license may forbid this.

;-)

This may or may not help - You can have a look at what oracles say about
DB2 and SQL Server
http://www.oracle.com/ip/deploy/database/oracle9i/

1. Postgres has  features like Store procedures and triggers that are in
Oracle and not in MySql.
2. The Postgresql licensing model (free, with comercial support
available)  is easy to understand compared to Oracle.


It really depends on what you are doing with your application.
If performance is a problem in a particalure area, you might be better
spending the money for the cost of oracle on new hardware.
E.G. Solid state Hard Drive would improve things.

Regards,
Simon


Lee Harr wrote:

>>What does Oracle have that Postgresql doesn't have? Why does people
>>continue thinking that Oracle is better than PostgreSQL?
>>
>>How can I compare it??
>>
>>
>>
>
>Actually, your Oracle license may forbid this.
>
>;-)
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>    (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>
>
>

The world rejoiced as gandalf@sum.desktop.com.br (Marcelo Pereira) wrote:
> I have been using PostgreSQL to do everything I need, but people always
> ask me ``why PostgreSQL''.
>
> I use to tell that PostgreSQL is powerfull, but when they ask me to
> compare PostgreSQL with Oracle I get myself in troubles.
>
> I don't use Oracle!
>
> What does Oracle have that Postgresql doesn't have? Why does people
> continue thinking that Oracle is better than PostgreSQL?
>
> How can I compare it??

Some things Oracle has that PostgreSQL doesn't include:

- Thoroughly tested schemes for database replication and
  "hot-swappable" fallover so that you can switch servers virtually
  instantly if a primary server 'dies.'

- Hordes of engineers that can be flown out at an hour's notice if you
  run into a severe problem.

- A multiplicity of highly configurable table attributes allowing you
  to spend all your time trying to decide how to configure any given
  table.

  Sometimes this configurability is helpful, as abstruse choices can
  sometimes be very worthwhile.  Other times it may not be...

- The ability to associate tables and indexes with "tablespaces" that
  allow the ability to spend all your time (well, the time left after
  fiddling with table attributes) figuring out how to optimally split
  application tables across filesystems and physical disks.

- All sorts of custom plug-ins that they have constructed for
  specialized applications.

- The benefits of Oracle's additional applications (ERP and such) and
  application server software (Java and such).

None of these are likely to be added to PostgreSQL right soon.

The way to "push/sell" PostgreSQL involves /not/ going after those
sorts of "enterprise applications" where organizations are using these
aspects of Oracle.

The places where PostgreSQL ought to be an easier "sell" are in the
context of what might be called "departmental applications," where
24x365.24 uptime is /not/ vital, where databases may be just a few GB
in size, and where the fact that PostgreSQL is easily installable via
"rpm -i postgresql-server_7.3_i386.rpm" instead of the arcane
incantations of Oracle.

(Oh, my, I did an seemingly successful install of Oracle 8 on Linux,
on Friday; it is anything but obvious that you need incantations like
"export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5" to get it to /pretend/ to work...  It
then doesn't work...)
--
output = reverse("moc.enworbbc@" "enworbbc")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxxian.html
If a stealth bomber crashes in a forest, will it make a sound?

> > I have been using PostgreSQL to do everything I need, but people always
> > ask me ``why PostgreSQL''.
> >
> > I use to tell that PostgreSQL is powerfull, but when they ask me to
> > compare PostgreSQL with Oracle I get myself in troubles.
> >
> > I don't use Oracle!
> >
> > What does Oracle have that Postgresql doesn't have? Why does people
> > continue thinking that Oracle is better than PostgreSQL?
> >
> > How can I compare it??

I really hate to feed this troll, but since messages like this are
handy in the archives and having been down the Prim-rose^H^H^H^HOracle
path before, a few bits to think about:

> Some things Oracle has that PostgreSQL doesn't include:
>
> - Thoroughly tested schemes for database replication and
> "hot-swappable" fallover so that you can switch servers virtually
> instantly if a primary server 'dies.'

Have you actually seen this in practice and require anything less than
a team of full time DBAs hovering over the system at all times?  ;)

> - Hordes of engineers that can be flown out at an hour's notice if you
>   run into a severe problem.

Because you don't have the source and can't poke at things on your
own.  Small convenience to have given you laid down $5M for your
database installation and $3M support/consulting.  Someone on a plane
isn't worth $8M to me, sorry, those days came and went like W2K.

> - A multiplicity of highly configurable table attributes allowing you
>   to spend all your time trying to decide how to configure any given
>   table.
>
>   Sometimes this configurability is helpful, as abstruse choices can
>   sometimes be very worthwhile.  Other times it may not be...

Sadly, there's truth to this.  ::grin::

> - The ability to associate tables and indexes with "tablespaces"
> that allow the ability to spend all your time (well, the time left
> after fiddling with table attributes) figuring out how to optimally
> split application tables across filesystems and physical disks.

Others have seen me comment on this before.

> - All sorts of custom plug-ins that they have constructed for
> specialized applications.

Heh, by and large this hasn't been worth that much in my experience.
In two instances, we bought Oracle packages only to discover the were
terrible and rolled our own, absorbing the cost of the useless
packages.

> - The benefits of Oracle's additional applications (ERP and such) and
>   application server software (Java and such).

Heh, and that, in my experience, has proven to be a liability and not
a feature.  -sc

--
Sean Chittenden

Lee Harr wrote:

>>What does Oracle have that Postgresql doesn't have? Why does people
>>continue thinking that Oracle is better than PostgreSQL?
>>
>>How can I compare it??
>>
>>
>>
>
>Actually, your Oracle license may forbid this.
>
>
>
You certainly can. Oracle licenses forbid *publishing* benchmark results
without Oracle Corp's approval. So as long as your comparison is not a
benchmark, you are fine it would seem.

The fact that Oracle has a license containing this sort of nonesense is
an interesting point to ponder in itself.... :-)

regards
Mark

Hello All,

I don't want to compare PostgreSQL and Oracle thinking about money.

What about speed?? Is Oracle faster than PostgreSQL?? Why?? I believe
that some day the PostgreSQL development team will improve the engine and
it will be as fast as Oracle.

Someone tell about database replication, but isn't PostgreSQL supporting
it??

I don't plan to use Oracle, I just want to have solid arguments to say
PostgreSQL is as good as Oracle. There are *a lot* of person that think
Oracle is better because it is not free. To tell the truth, I know lots of
people that preffer Windows instead Linux, Oracle instead PostgreSQL,
... , non-free instead free, without any kind of knowledge, just because
it isn't free and came with a full color manual on a brighting (also full
color) box.

See ya,

Marcelo Pereira

-- Remember that only God and ^[:w saves.
        __
       (_.\           © Marcelo Pereira     |
        / / ___       marcelo@pereira.com   |
       / (_/ _ \__    [Math|99]-IMECC       |
_______\____/_\___)___Unicamp_______________/

--- Lee Harr, with your fast fingers, wrote:

:> > What does Oracle have that Postgresql doesn't have? Why does people
:> > continue thinking that Oracle is better than PostgreSQL?
:> >
:> > How can I compare it??
:> >
:>
:> Actually, your Oracle license may forbid this.
:>
:> ;-)
:>
:>
:> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
:> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
:>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
:>

Hello All,
how to install
ps sql on win98 give me a url:


--- Marcelo Pereira <gandalf@sum.desktop.com.br>
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I don't want to compare PostgreSQL and Oracle
> thinking about money.
>
> What about speed?? Is Oracle faster than
> PostgreSQL?? Why?? I believe
> that some day the PostgreSQL development team will
> improve the engine and
> it will be as fast as Oracle.
>
> Someone tell about database replication, but isn't
> PostgreSQL supporting
> it??
>
> I don't plan to use Oracle, I just want to have
> solid arguments to say
> PostgreSQL is as good as Oracle. There are *a lot*
> of person that think
> Oracle is better because it is not free. To tell the
> truth, I know lots of
> people that preffer Windows instead Linux, Oracle
> instead PostgreSQL,
> ... , non-free instead free, without any kind of
> knowledge, just because
> it isn't free and came with a full color manual on a
> brighting (also full
> color) box.
>
> See ya,
>
> Marcelo Pereira
>
> -- Remember that only God and ^[:w saves.
>         __
>        (_.\           � Marcelo Pereira     |
>         / / ___       marcelo@pereira.com   |
>        / (_/ _ \__    [Math|99]-IMECC       |
> _______\____/_\___)___Unicamp_______________/
>
> --- Lee Harr, with your fast fingers, wrote:
>
> :> > What does Oracle have that Postgresql doesn't
> have? Why does people
> :> > continue thinking that Oracle is better than
> PostgreSQL?
> :> >
> :> > How can I compare it??
> :> >
> :>
> :> Actually, your Oracle license may forbid this.
> :>
> :> ;-)
> :>
> :>
> :> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> :> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the
> unregister command
> :>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to
> majordomo@postgresql.org)
> :>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


=====
Take careMohd.Ghalib Akhtar(office)91-11-6152172,Ext-217
Fax : 91-11-6146217, 6149446
---------------------------------

---------------------------------


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 09:50:13AM -0300, Marcelo Pereira wrote:

> What about speed?? Is Oracle faster than PostgreSQL?? Why?? I believe
> that some day the PostgreSQL development team will improve the engine and
> it will be as fast as Oracle.

 Speed? Use MySQL :-) I think real relation database use is not about
 speed only -- it means speed is not always most important argument. I
 sure people use Oracle for the others features.

> I don't plan to use Oracle, I just want to have solid arguments to say
> PostgreSQL is as good as Oracle. There are *a lot* of person that think

 _Always_ if you compare something you must to define surroundings
 where and how you will use wanted software.

> Oracle is better because it is not free. To tell the truth, I know lots of
> people that preffer Windows instead Linux, Oracle instead PostgreSQL,
> ... , non-free instead free, without any kind of knowledge, just because
> it isn't free and came with a full color manual on a brighting (also full
> color) box.

  If you want to start talk about PostgreSQL as OpenSource project is
 good first read something about PostgreSQL history. The PostgreSQL
 history = SQL engines and relation DBs reseach history :-)

    Karel

--
 Karel Zak  <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>
 http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/

On 10 Feb 2003 at 13:41, Karel Zak wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 09:50:13AM -0300, Marcelo Pereira wrote:
>
> > What about speed?? Is Oracle faster than PostgreSQL?? Why?? I believe
> > that some day the PostgreSQL development team will improve the engine and
> > it will be as fast as Oracle.
>
>  Speed? Use MySQL :-) I think real relation database use is not about
>  speed only -- it means speed is not always most important argument. I
>  sure people use Oracle for the others features.

Not too good of an argument. It gives an impression that postgresql community
want to hide behind features and claim that speed is not necessary. Sounds very
familiar with mysql propaganda that "transactions are not necessary because we
don't have it"

Admit it. Psotgresql is not as fast as oracle neither as feature rich as
oracle. but at the same time, it is not as ridiculous as oracle at times.

 Besides the speed/feature difference with oracle is small enough to fit 80-20
model. 80% people using 20% of features. Those numbers are from desktop apps.
but the principle still holds..

And yes, I didn't miss the smiley but still want to clarify the things in case
somebody is naïve enough..

Bye
 Shridhar

--
Anthony's Law of the Workshop:    Any tool when dropped, will roll into the least
accessible    corner of the workshop.Corollary:    On the way to the corner, any
dropped tool will first strike    your toes.

Hello Marcelo,

Monday, February 10, 2003, 8:50:13 PM, you wrote:

MP> Hello All,

MP> I don't want to compare PostgreSQL and Oracle thinking about money.

MP> What about speed?? Is Oracle faster than PostgreSQL?? Why?? I believe
MP> that some day the PostgreSQL development team will improve the engine and
MP> it will be as fast as Oracle.

MP> Someone tell about database replication, but isn't PostgreSQL supporting
MP> it??

MP> I don't plan to use Oracle, I just want to have solid arguments to say
MP> PostgreSQL is as good as Oracle. There are *a lot* of person that think
MP> Oracle is better because it is not free. To tell the truth, I know lots of
MP> people that preffer Windows instead Linux, Oracle instead PostgreSQL,
MP> ... , non-free instead free, without any kind of knowledge, just because
MP> it isn't free and came with a full color manual on a brighting (also full
MP> color) box.

MP> See ya,

MP> Marcelo Pereira

MP> -- Remember that only God and ^[:w saves.
MP>         __
MP>        (_.\           © Marcelo Pereira     |
MP>         / / ___       marcelo@pereira.com   |
MP>        / (_/ _ \__    [Math|99]-IMECC       |
MP> _______\____/_\___)___Unicamp_______________/

MP> --- Lee Harr, with your fast fingers, wrote:

:>> > What does Oracle have that Postgresql doesn't have? Why does people
:>> > continue thinking that Oracle is better than PostgreSQL?
:>> >
:>> > How can I compare it??
:>> >
:>>
:>> Actually, your Oracle license may forbid this.
:>>
:>> ;-)
:>>
:>>
:>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
:>> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
:>>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
:>>


MP> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
MP> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Oracle will not sale just RDBMS, in my opinion, PostGreSQL is just an
RDBMS, in the functionality comparison, the difference is not that
huge, even speed! You know, performance depends on kernel-
application-data-structure-based dynamic tuning!

Oracle like Microsoft, I would rather said, they are both software
integrators. If you have time, you can check the Oracle products out,
you will find that thousands of Tools, Sets, Suites, applications,
file system, e-mail server, even OS (do you still remember years ago,
SUN and Oracle declared a project to make a ORACLE-BOX!!!)

Guys like me would like to try to fix things in a new way, but the
BOSS would not!

--
Best regards,
 common                            mailto:common_mailbox@21cn.com

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 06:22:19PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2003 at 13:41, Karel Zak wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 09:50:13AM -0300, Marcelo Pereira wrote:
> >
> > > What about speed?? Is Oracle faster than PostgreSQL?? Why?? I believe
> > > that some day the PostgreSQL development team will improve the engine and
> > > it will be as fast as Oracle.
> >
> >  Speed? Use MySQL :-) I think real relation database use is not about
> >  speed only -- it means speed is not always most important argument. I
> >  sure people use Oracle for the others features.
>
> Not too good of an argument. It gives an impression that postgresql community
> want to hide behind features and claim that speed is not necessary. Sounds very

 Nobody wants to hide something. You can test the PostgreSQL speed,
 you can write and talk about it, you can install bench test. It's
 nothing hidden. I'm unsure if you can do it for Oracle too...

    Karel

--
 Karel Zak  <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>
 http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/

In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in ("Shridhar Daithankar")
transmitted:
> On 10 Feb 2003 at 13:41, Karel Zak wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 09:50:13AM -0300, Marcelo Pereira wrote:
>> > What about speed?? Is Oracle faster than PostgreSQL?? Why?? I
>> > believe that some day the PostgreSQL development team will
>> > improve the engine and it will be as fast as Oracle.

>>  Speed? Use MySQL :-) I think real relation database use is not
>>  about speed only -- it means speed is not always most important
>>  argument. I sure people use Oracle for the others features.

> Not too good of an argument. It gives an impression that postgresql
> community want to hide behind features and claim that speed is not
> necessary. Sounds very familiar with mysql propaganda that
> "transactions are not necessary because we don't have it"

> Admit it. Postgresql is not as fast as oracle neither as feature
> rich as oracle. but at the same time, it is not as ridiculous as
> oracle at times.

No, the answer is "We don't know which is faster," and it is quite
certain that we /can't/ know with any degree of certainty.

The licensing arrangements for Oracle (and many similar products) deny
the ability to do performance comparisons.

And the benchmarks that /are/ done tend to be useless as they
represent "shilling" for one product or another.  The (Samuel
Clemens?) maxim that "figure lie, and liars figure" is seldom more
true than when looking at database benchmarks.

The fact that MySQL shills push benchmarks is far more evidence of
them trying to "put one over on people" than it is of there being any
performance merit to the product.
--
output = reverse("gro.mca@" "enworbbc")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/spiritual.html
"Absolutely nothing should be concluded from these figures except that
no  conclusion can be  drawn from  them."
-- By Joseph L. Brothers, Linux/PowerPC Project

On 9 Feb 2003 at 17:48, Ben-Nes Michael wrote:

> also I heard that you cant do transaction within transaction in postgres
> while in Oracle you can. ( im not sure if its true at all )

nope... "commit" in Oracle close ALL open transaction.

Just to put my 2 c.:

Postgres is by far easier in install. Without a skilled DBA you can't
even *think* in putting together a *working* Oracle installation.
Pl/SQL is far superior to pg/sql. But, in postgres you *can* use other
languages for SP.
"imp" and "exp" utility are far superior to pg_dump and pg_restore.
Oracle has the habit of thinking that *his* version of SQL is *the*
version of SQL (and it's the least similar to standards, IMHO).

Of course there are many other features that differs. The one I miss
more is the two-phase commit... (AKA transactions distributed
among databases)

Just my 0.02 Euros ;-)
bye!
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

  Fabrizio Ermini                 e-mail:
  P.za S. Allende, 8              hermooz@tin.it
  50063 Figline Valdarno (FI)     faermini@tin.it
  ITALY                           ICQ UIN: 24.64.37

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:59:14AM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
> No, the answer is "We don't know which is faster," and it is quite
> certain that we /can't/ know with any degree of certainty.
>
> The licensing arrangements for Oracle (and many similar products) deny
> the ability to do performance comparisons.

No they don't.  The deny the ability to _publish_ the benchmarks.  If
you have sufficient funds and time, you could do all the benchmarks
yourself.

You could also rely on the TPC for data.  Since they publish the
test specs, the comparison is at least apples to apples.  They happen
to be really strange, bio-engineered apples, with each system
hand-crafted for the purposes of the test at hand.  And of course,
the deeper pockets of Oracle provide ample oppotunity for them to try
more often.  But you still get actually useful comparisons in that
case.  Whether they are sufficiently analogous to the application you
are trying to build is another question entirely.  (Admittedly, in
the absense of a rich patron, PostgreSQL is not going to have any
TPC numbers.)

I see frequently suggestions that benchmarks are useless because they
measure the wrong things, or that they are skewed for this or that
case.  That doesn't mean that good tests are impossible. I'm not a
real big fan of the TPC's policies, but they do have some
well-crafted test specifications.

A

--
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS                           Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Karel Zak wrote:

> > > > What about speed?? Is Oracle faster than PostgreSQL?? Why?? I believe
> > > > that some day the PostgreSQL development team will improve the engine and
> > > > it will be as fast as Oracle.
> > >
> > >  Speed? Use MySQL :-) I think real relation database use is not about
> > >  speed only -- it means speed is not always most important argument. I
> > >  sure people use Oracle for the others features.
> >
> > Not too good of an argument. It gives an impression that postgresql community
> > want to hide behind features and claim that speed is not necessary. Sounds very

i think this a fantastic argument, one more people should consider.  if you
want speed AND a RDBMS you need to rethink your rational - for example, how
many people using mysql have schemas so simply that any key->value type
database (BDB) would suffice?  here in my group we store metadata in a
postgresql database to ensure data integrity, to foster development, and to
centralize metadata management.  accessing _any_ RDBMS (note that mysql is
_not_ a RDBMS) from our near-realtime system would be madness or expesive in
oracle's case - we offload recent versions of crucial metadata sets into
berstein's CDB (constant databases) for access by these processes, which are
read only.  even if we required write databases i would consider berkeley db,
or any other database with the overhead of parsing sql.

talking about speed and an RDBMS is like optimizing java code - just write it
in c and be done with it!

IMHO 'speed is not necessary' and impossible to acheive with _any_ RDBMS and
so should not be considered.

-a

--

 ====================================
 | Ara Howard
 | NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory
 | Information and Technology Services
 | Data Systems Group
 | R/FST 325 Broadway
 | Boulder, CO 80305-3328
 | Email: ahoward@fsl.noaa.gov
 | Phone:  303-497-7238
 | Fax:    303-497-7259
 ====================================

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 03:40:02PM +0100, Fabrizio Ermini wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2003 at 17:48, Ben-Nes Michael wrote:
>
> > also I heard that you cant do transaction within transaction in postgres
> > while in Oracle you can. ( im not sure if its true at all )
>
> nope... "commit" in Oracle close ALL open transaction.

I suspect the point is really that an error inside a transaction in
Oracle doesn't force you to roll back to the very beginning.  I
believe this is listed as "savepoints" in the current TODO.

Which reminds me of another feature PostgreSQL has.  You can buy an
awful lot of _very talented_ developer time with the fees you'd just
to use stock Oracle.  I don't know why more companies (and to date I
have to include my own employer in this category) don't spend just a
little of that savings on PostgreSQL development.

A

--
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS                           Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Marcelo Pereira wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have been using PostgreSQL to do everything I need, but people always
> ask me ``why PostgreSQL''.
>
> I use to tell that PostgreSQL is powerfull, but when they ask me to
> compare PostgreSQL with Oracle I get myself in troubles.
>
> I don't use Oracle!
>
> What does Oracle have that Postgresql doesn't have? Why does people
> continue thinking that Oracle is better than PostgreSQL?
>
> How can I compare it??

First off, I have to say that Postgresql and Oracle are more alike than
different.  They are both reliable, stable database systems.  They both
have similar featurese, like stored procedures, triggers, views, all
manner of unions and joins are supported, and they both use the MVCC style
of locking.  If you haven't read up on what MVCC is, I'd suggest reading
the postgresql manual on it.

The biggest differences between the two is the objects of the teams that
build those databases, and the amount of man hours they can put in.  Since
Oracle corp is rather large, they can afford to throw man power at problem
areas the pgsql team is just now getting around to tackling, like
replication, clustering, etc...

I'm sure that as time goes by more and more of the mission critical domain
will fall to Postgresql, but for now, I use it more as a solid reliable
storage system for intranet applications and for data mining and
warehousing.  In this application, being up 24/7 with no down time is not
really needed.  That being said, we've probably had no more than a few
minutes of downtime in the last three years we've been using postgresql.

But here's the real performance issue.  I'm willing to bet that whatever
it costs to build a fast Oracle server, hardware + licenses, I could spend
on just the hardware for Postgresql and outrun it.  Last I checked the per
CPU cost of Oracle enterprise edition was $40,000.

So, assuming you were going to put Oracle on a stock white box, say a 2.8
GHz Xeon, (Dell poweredge 2650 with 2 gig ram would be $6700 with dual 18
Gig hard drives)   So I'd get to build a $46,700 dollar server for my
Postgresql box.  Building a quad 2.0 GHz xeon with 16 Gigs ram and four 73
gig hard drives still doesn't quite get me to $40,000.  I guess I could
buy a high end support contract from the pgsql.com guys or something to
spend a little more money.  Then I get to use their rep server for free.
Might wanna look at a backup box at that point.

If you go to a dual CPU box, I now have $80,000+ to spend, and SGI has
some very nice equipment for that price.

My point is that the cost of licensing in Oracle quickly makes Postgresql
look attractive for anything that doesn't need that 24/7 mission critical
tag on it.

About speed:

I am using Postgres as a backend for my online databases. Everybody uses
MySQL for that because it is faster right?

Wrong! Everybody uses MySQL because PHP is as slow as glue when compared
to JSP... By using Postgresql and JSP the pages are served just as
quickly as with LAMP. If not faster...

Cheers
Tony Grant


--
www.tgds.net Library management software toolkit,
redhat linux on Sony Vaio C1XD,
Dreamweaver MX with Tomcat and PostgreSQL

> About speed:
>
> I am using Postgres as a backend for my online databases. Everybody
> uses MySQL for that because it is faster right?
>
> Wrong! Everybody uses MySQL because PHP is as slow as glue when
> compared to JSP... By using Postgresql and JSP the pages are served
> just as quickly as with LAMP. If not faster...

Drat, this topic belongs on a -chat list at this point, but I have to
second this.  Short of applications that could be distilled to a cdb
or bdb database, I have found PostgreSQL to be faster than MySQL and
that gap seems to be getting bigger thanks in huge part to the efforts
that Tom's been putting into query/executor optimization and the new
bitmapset tokens (newly committed and very cool/appreciated, IMHO).
-sc

--
Sean Chittenden

On Monday 10 February 2003 15:58, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 03:40:02PM +0100, Fabrizio Ermini wrote:
> > On 9 Feb 2003 at 17:48, Ben-Nes Michael wrote:
> > > also I heard that you cant do transaction within transaction in
> > > postgres while in Oracle you can. ( im not sure if its true at all )
> >
> > nope... "commit" in Oracle close ALL open transaction.
>
> I suspect the point is really that an error inside a transaction in
> Oracle doesn't force you to roll back to the very beginning.  I
> believe this is listed as "savepoints" in the current TODO.
>
> Which reminds me of another feature PostgreSQL has.  You can buy an
> awful lot of _very talented_ developer time with the fees you'd just
> to use stock Oracle.  I don't know why more companies (and to date I
> have to include my own employer in this category) don't spend just a
> little of that savings on PostgreSQL development.
>

Oracle don't get all rows in query - cursors in oracle are out of a transaction
This is important for big queries

regards
Haris Peco

Oops! andrew@libertyrms.info (Andrew Sullivan) was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:59:14AM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
>> No, the answer is "We don't know which is faster," and it is quite
>> certain that we /can't/ know with any degree of certainty.
>>
>> The licensing arrangements for Oracle (and many similar products) deny
>> the ability to do performance comparisons.
>
> No they don't.  The deny the ability to _publish_ the benchmarks.  If
> you have sufficient funds and time, you could do all the benchmarks
> yourself.

Fair enough.

But the point still stands that the licenses deny the ability to make
public claims about relative performance.

If you happened to do some benchmarks (on dev6, if it ever gets
working :-)), then I'd be quite well placed to look at the results,
but it wouldn't help anybody making public claims about their relative
peformance.

> You could also rely on the TPC for data.  Since they publish the
> test specs, the comparison is at least apples to apples.  They
> happen to be really strange, bio-engineered apples, with each system
> hand-crafted for the purposes of the test at hand.  And of course,
> the deeper pockets of Oracle provide ample oppotunity for them to
> try more often.  But you still get actually useful comparisons in
> that case.  Whether they are sufficiently analogous to the
> application you are trying to build is another question entirely.
> (Admittedly, in the absense of a rich patron, PostgreSQL is not
> going to have any TPC numbers.)

I'm still fairly skeptical of the TPC data; the results I have seen
commonly involve fairly contrived sorts of systems.  They wind up
combining Oracle + some hardware configuration that may never actually
be sold to anyone + Tuxedo with a hand-tuned overall set of
configuration.

Will that configuration be usefully analagous with what anyone is
actually planning to use?  It's difficult to say.

There's actually, by the same token, some "real-world" merit to some
of the MySQL benchmarketing.  Consider: they may only present the DB
activity that allows MySQL to look good, that involves direct keyed
access to individual DB entries, which is where it "shines."  For
someone that is using the "LAMP" development model, it is more than
plausible that their data access methods correspond fairly well with
the benchmarks.

In other words, someone that is using the database wisely will use it
for the things it actually is good at, which, for the "M word" will
involve having a very few processes doing a few updates and a bunch of
processes doing a lot of reads.

> I see frequently suggestions that benchmarks are useless because
> they measure the wrong things, or that they are skewed for this or
> that case.  That doesn't mean that good tests are impossible. I'm
> not a real big fan of the TPC's policies, but they do have some
> well-crafted test specifications.

Unfortuantely, a lot of the older TPC specs have proven susceptible to
"hacks" where the data proves to be almost totally non-interdependent,
so that by throwing extra CPUs and extra disks at the benchmarks, you
can get very nearly linear scalability.  Based on history, I'm
skeptical that the "hacks" for more recent benchmarks just haven't
been found yet...
--
output = reverse("ac.notelrac.teneerf@" "454aa")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/finances.html
"Robot: Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."
-- Marketing Division, Sirius Cybernetics Corp.

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Christopher Browne wrote:

> Oops! andrew@libertyrms.info (Andrew Sullivan) was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:59:14AM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
> >> No, the answer is "We don't know which is faster," and it is quite
> >> certain that we /can't/ know with any degree of certainty.
> >>
> >> The licensing arrangements for Oracle (and many similar products) deny
> >> the ability to do performance comparisons.
> >
> > No they don't.  The deny the ability to _publish_ the benchmarks.  If
> > you have sufficient funds and time, you could do all the benchmarks
> > yourself.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> But the point still stands that the licenses deny the ability to make
> public claims about relative performance.
>
> If you happened to do some benchmarks (on dev6, if it ever gets
> working :-)), then I'd be quite well placed to look at the results,
> but it wouldn't help anybody making public claims about their relative
> peformance.
>

I've got a funny story about this.

One morning as the train was pulling into the station I was unusually awake
enough to see a big advertising hording on the platform showing a bar chart.
One bar was red and large, from the bottom to the top of the chart, it was
labeled Oracle. The second bar was nonexistant and labeled DB2 with a question
mark. The caption on the advert was something like 'Even IBM choose Oracle for
their own servers'. The explicit or implicit, I can't remember which, message
was that they [Oracle] weren't allowed to show DB2's relative performance.

I even took to watching for it and having a little chuckle.


--
Nigel Andrews

On 10 Feb 2003 at 19:48, Tony Grant wrote:

> About speed:
>
> I am using Postgres as a backend for my online databases. Everybody uses
> MySQL for that because it is faster right?
>
> Wrong! Everybody uses MySQL because PHP is as slow as glue when compared
> to JSP... By using Postgresql and JSP the pages are served just as
> quickly as with LAMP. If not faster...

Sorry for nitpicking, but when fight is between mysql/php v/s JSP/postgresql,
why bring in linux and apache? Aren't they common between these two?

:-)

Regards,
 Shridhar

-----------------------------------------------------------
Shridhar Daithankar
LIMS CPE Team Member, PSPL.
mailto:shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in
Phone:- +91-20-5678900 Extn.270
Fax  :- +91-20-5678901
-----------------------------------------------------------

Im not that sure as you.

PHP is blazing fast, especialy when it comes to handle strings.

I ran a code that alter 10 lines text each time it loop, and i looped it
100,000 time, it took me 1 sec + - !
I also read articles that compare PHP, VBScript, JSP and VBScript was last
while PHP & JSP where the same + -.

Maybe you mean that the PHP module that connect to Postgres is bad written ?

--------------------------
Canaan Surfing Ltd.
Internet Service Providers
Ben-Nes Michael - Manager
Tel: 972-4-6991122
Fax: 972-4-6990098
http://sites.canaan.co.il
--------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Grant" <tony@tgds.net>
To: "postgres list" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:48 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL x Oracle


> About speed:
>
> I am using Postgres as a backend for my online databases. Everybody uses
> MySQL for that because it is faster right?
>
> Wrong! Everybody uses MySQL because PHP is as slow as glue when compared
> to JSP... By using Postgresql and JSP the pages are served just as
> quickly as with LAMP. If not faster...
>
> Cheers
> Tony Grant
>
>
> --
> www.tgds.net Library management software toolkit,
> redhat linux on Sony Vaio C1XD,
> Dreamweaver MX with Tomcat and PostgreSQL
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>

On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 02:08, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:

> > Wrong! Everybody uses MySQL because PHP is as slow as glue when compared
> > to JSP... By using Postgresql and JSP the pages are served just as
> > quickly as with LAMP. If not faster...
>
> Sorry for nitpicking, but when fight is between mysql/php v/s JSP/postgresql,
> why bring in linux and apache? Aren't they common between these two?

Tomcat runs on lots of different OS. So does PostgreSQL. My development
server is now OS X. So Linux is optional.

Apache is also optional with JSP. Since Tomcat 4.x speed for serving
static pages (less that 5% of pages in most webapps) is not much of an
issue. It _is_ usefull to have an Apache image server.

And some people will prefer using JBoss or other Java application
servers so there is a lot of choice.

I may not be in fashion but my software choices are based on months of
study of available solutions. And I have never bought the idea that
PostgreSQL is a slow database for a web application backend. That is an
urban legend. If you don't know how to design a database and code SQL
then sure it will be slow. If you do things right it is fast and rock
solid (how many times has Slashdot gone down because of database
problems?) and you get to sleep at night. A couple of years back I
survived a hardware failure and got all my data back from a dead machine
thanks to Bruce, Justin, Tom and others on this list.

Historical note: I stopped using PHP after my second version change in
less than a year when there was no compatibility between version
numbers. Things are a little more sane since those times but I
completely lost trust in the PHP developer team at that time...

Cheers

Tony Grant

--
www.tgds.net Library management software toolkit,
redhat linux on Sony Vaio C1XD,
Dreamweaver MX with Tomcat and PostgreSQL

On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 02:49, Ben-Nes Michael wrote:
> Im not that sure as you.
>
> PHP is blazing fast, especialy when it comes to handle strings.
>
> I ran a code that alter 10 lines text each time it loop, and i looped it
> 100,000 time, it took me 1 sec + - !
> I also read articles that compare PHP, VBScript, JSP and VBScript was last
> while PHP & JSP where the same + -.
>
> Maybe you mean that the PHP module that connect to Postgres is bad written ?

There is a _lot_ of badly written PHP code out there. If JSP is badly
written most times it won't compile.

Tony Grant

--
www.tgds.net Library management software toolkit,
redhat linux on Sony Vaio C1XD,
Dreamweaver MX with Tomcat and PostgreSQL

Firehose time!  :)

I think having a PHP vs JSP war alongside a Postgresql vs Oracle could be
overdoing things!

Link.

At 09:23 AM 2/11/03 -0500, Tony Grant wrote:

>On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 02:49, Ben-Nes Michael wrote:
> > Maybe you mean that the PHP module that connect to Postgres is bad
> written ?
>
>There is a _lot_ of badly written PHP code out there. If JSP is badly
>written most times it won't compile.
>
>Tony Grant

Hi Marcelo,

I am starting with PostGreSQL and I have several installations on Oracle
8i and 9i running under Netware or linux platforms.

Things I would like to see on PostGreSQL that I have on Oracle 8i and 9i
(Perhaps already on PostGreSQL but I haven't could to find it):


-*- Much better transaction control.
    ===============================
I can do this on my oracle pl/sql procedures/functions, for example, but
not in my PostgreSQL (I think so):

BEGIN
  INSERT INTO TABLE-A......
EXCEPTION
  WHEN DUP_VAL_ON_INDEX THEN
     BEGIN
       UPDATE TABLE-A
       INSERT INTO LOG-ERROR 'PARCIAL ERROR'...
     EXCEPTION
       INSERT INTO LOG-ERROR 'SEVERE ERROR'...
     END
  WHEN OTHERS THEN
     BEGIN
       INSERT INTO LOG-ERROR 'ERROR NUMBER:||SQLCODE||'  ERROR MESSAGE:'||SQLERRM.....
     EXCEPTION
       NULL;  -- Do nothing, but continue working...
     END
END

-*- SavePoints.
    ==========
BEGIN
   SAVEPOINT my_point;
   UPDATE emp SET ... WHERE empno = emp_id;
   ...
   SAVEPOINT my_point;  -- move my_point to current point
   INSERT INTO emp VALUES (emp_id, ...);
EXCEPTION
   WHEN OTHERS THEN
      ROLLBACK TO my_point;
END;



-*- Packages.
    ========
I can live whitout it but are pretty to maintain organized all my
procedures and functions.


-*- Default values on procedures and functions and FIELD NAMES on
DECLARATION.  Ala Oracle:
    ==========================================================
CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE MY_PROC(MY_FIRST SCHEMA.TABLE1.FIELDNAME%TYPE) AS
  BEGIN
     ......
     ......
  END MY_PROC.


-*- When I have object-2 (procedure, view, function, etc) and it use
object-1 (another procedure, function, view) and I modified object-1..
I'd like to PostGreSQL mark all dependent objects with "must compile" or
something similar to quickly be able to find all affected objects.


-*- Be able to put indexes on a disk and tables on another disk.  I
think, perhaps, this may improve performance (but I am happy with
PostGreSQL performance).


How I said I am starting with PostgreSQL.. perhaps all of this may be
done already but I cannot to find it.

Greetings...


Marcelo Pereira wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have been using PostgreSQL to do everything I need, but people always
> ask me ``why PostgreSQL''.
>
> I use to tell that PostgreSQL is powerfull, but when they ask me to
> compare PostgreSQL with Oracle I get myself in troubles.
>
> I don't use Oracle!
>
> What does Oracle have that Postgresql doesn't have? Why does people
> continue thinking that Oracle is better than PostgreSQL?
>
> How can I compare it??
>
> See ya,
>
> Marcelo Pereira
>
> -- Remember that only God and ^[:w saves.
>         __
>        (_.\           © Marcelo Pereira     |
>         / / ___       marcelo@pereira.com   |
>        / (_/ _ \__    [Math|99]-IMECC       |
> _______\____/_\___)___Unicamp_______________/
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org

Hi Lincoln,

We are not fighting! We are just talking about the differences between
PostgreSQL and Oracle.

The only think I want is to improve PostgreSQL.

See ya,

Marcelo Pereira

-- Remember that only God and ^[:w saves.
        __
       (_.\           © Marcelo Pereira     |
        / / ___       marcelo@pereira.com   |
       / (_/ _ \__    [Math|99]-IMECC       |
_______\____/_\___)___Unicamp_______________/

--- Lincoln Yeoh, with your fast fingers, wrote:

:> Firehose time!  :)
:>
:> I think having a PHP vs JSP war alongside a Postgresql vs Oracle could be
:> overdoing things!
:>
:> Link.
:>
:> At 09:23 AM 2/11/03 -0500, Tony Grant wrote:
:>
:> >On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 02:49, Ben-Nes Michael wrote:
:> > > Maybe you mean that the PHP module that connect to Postgres is bad
:> > written ?
:> >
:> >There is a _lot_ of badly written PHP code out there. If JSP is badly
:> >written most times it won't compile.
:> >
:> >Tony Grant
:>
:>
:>
:> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
:> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
:>
:> http://archives.postgresql.org
:>

Yes Its true.

But I kinda like it.  Just nice to know other people's viewpoint.  Though
you may have to do lot of research yourselves
to find out which is best rather then just relying on what others say.  I
think people will know by experience which
is best.

  Have a great day.

Karthikeyan.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lincoln Yeoh" <lyeoh@pop.jaring.my>
To: "Tony Grant" <tony@tgds.net>; "Ben-Nes Michael" <miki@canaan.co.il>
Cc: "postgres list" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL x Oracle


>
> Firehose time!  :)
>
> I think having a PHP vs JSP war alongside a Postgresql vs Oracle could be
> overdoing things!
>
> Link.
>
> At 09:23 AM 2/11/03 -0500, Tony Grant wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 02:49, Ben-Nes Michael wrote:
> > > Maybe you mean that the PHP module that connect to Postgres is bad
> > written ?
> >
> >There is a _lot_ of badly written PHP code out there. If JSP is badly
> >written most times it won't compile.
> >
> >Tony Grant
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 06:48:17PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:

> Unfortuantely, a lot of the older TPC specs have proven susceptible to
> "hacks" where the data proves to be almost totally non-interdependent,
> so that by throwing extra CPUs and extra disks at the benchmarks, you
> can get very nearly linear scalability.  Based on history, I'm
> skeptical that the "hacks" for more recent benchmarks just haven't
> been found yet...

Sure.  And isn't that what every database admin looks to do the
moment performance starts to crawl?  If everyone can use the same
hacks, then you just find out who works the best witht he hacks.

Do the TPC tests tell us anything about how the DBMS will work with
application x?  No.  But they are a clear, well-understood standard
with well-known deficiencies and advantages.

The question is not whether a test reveals actual utility of the
system for its intended use.  The question is merely whether good
performance in the set of tests is a predictor for good performance
in other areas.  TPC-B and TPC-C appear to be fairly consistent
predictors of good OLTP systems.  They don't give you any kind of
realistic idea of how the system will actually perform, though.  (In
this respect, the TPC tests are no different from the
LSAT/GRE/MCAT/&c. exams.  Does the LSAT test things necessary for law
school?  Nobody knows, and the LSAC doesn't care.  The test is merely
a good predictor of high scores at the time of law school
graduation.)

A

--
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS                           Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110

On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 07:49 , Tony Grant wrote:

> Historical note: I stopped using PHP after my second version change in
> less than a year when there was no compatibility between version
> numbers. Things are a little more sane since those times but I
> completely lost trust in the PHP developer team at that time...
>
> Cheers
>
> Tony Grant

Hi,
Funny you should mention this. I'm trying to find out if there
is an open source bulletin board project that uses Python and
PostgreSQL. All I can find are PHP (overwhelmingly) and Perl.
I'm not interested in using either language. I like using Python
and PostgreSQL with the Psycopg interface. So, if any of you
know of any open source Python - PostgreSQL BBS/forum software,
I'd appreciate any pointers.

I use Mac OS X 10.1.5 and a while ago I tried installing PHP 4.
I really tried. It wouldn't work and eventually got the
impression the PHP people were not really interested in Mac OS
X. Perhaps PHP's current 4.3.0 version may work, but the thrill
is gone.

- Joel

>>In article <3E475927.3040604@paradise.net.nz>, Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> writes:

> You certainly can. Oracle licenses forbid *publishing* benchmark results
> without Oracle Corp's approval. So as long as your comparison is not a
> benchmark, you are fine it would seem.

> The fact that Oracle has a license containing this sort of nonesense is
> an interesting point to ponder in itself.... :-)

The New York attorney general, I believe, sometimes in the last month
or so sued several big companies ot get rid of exactly such license
prohibitions.  My memory on this is pretty vague, don't remember if
the news was that he had filed suit, if the trial was over, had gone
to appeal, or what.  But this kind of prohibition may not last much
longer.

--
            ... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._.
     Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman & rocket surgeon / felix@crowfix.com
  GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E  6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR license #4933
I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o