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