Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft

Quoting Randolf Richardson <rr(at)8x(dot)ca>:

> I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle
>
> vs. Microsoft SQL Server. Recently someone has been trying to convince my

I don't know anything about your customer's requirements other than that they
have a DB currently and somebody(ies) is(are) trying to get them to switch to
another.

I don't think you'll find meaningful numbers unless you do your own benchmarks.

DB performance is very largely determined by how the application functions,
hardware, OS and the DBA's familiarity with the platform. I would suspect that
for any given workload on relatively similar hardware that just about any of the
DB's you mention would perform similarly if tuned appropriately.

> client to switch from SyBASE to Microsoft SQL Server (they originally wanted
>
> to go with Oracle but have since fallen in love with Microsoft). All this
> time I've been recommending PostgreSQL for cost and stability (my own testing
>
> has shown it to be better at handling abnormal shutdowns and using fewer
> system resources) in addition to true cross-platform compatibility.

Right for the customer? How about "Don't fix it if it ain't broke"? Replacing
a DB backend isn't always trivial (understatement). I suppose if their
application is very simple and uses few if any proprietary features of Sybase
then changing the DB would be simple. That depends heavily on the application.
In general, though, you probably shouldn't rip and replace DB platforms unless
there's a very good strategic reason.

I don't know about MSSQL, but I know that, if managed properly, Sybase and
Oracle can be pretty rock-solid and high performing. If *you* have found FooDB
to be the most stable and highest performing, then that probably means that
FooDB is the one you're most familiar with rather than FooDB being the best in
all circumstances. PostgreSQL is great. I love it. In the right hands and
under the right circumstances, it is the best DB. So is Sybase. And Oracle.
And MSSQL.

>
> If I can show my client some statistics that PostgreSQL outperforms
> these (I'm more concerned about it beating Oracle because I know that
> Microsoft's stuff is always slower, but I need the information anyway to
> protect my client from falling victim to a 'sales job'), then PostgreSQL will
>
> be the solution of choice as the client has always believed that they need a
>
> high-performance solution.
>

Unless there's a really compelling reason to switch, optimizing what they
already have is probably the best thing for them. They've already paid for it.
They've already written their own application and have some familiarity with
managing the DB. According to Sybase, Sybase is the fastest thing going. :-)
Which is probably pretty close to the truth if the application and DB are tuned
appropriately.

> I've already convinced them on the usual price, cross-platform
> compatibility, open source, long history, etc. points, and I've been assured
>
> that if the performance is the same or better than Oracle's and Microsoft's
>
> solutions that PostgreSQL is what they'll choose.

Are you telling me that they're willing to pay $40K per CPU for Oracle if it
performs 1% better than PostgreSQL, which is $0? Not to mention throw away
Sybase, which is a highly scalable platform in and of itself.

The best DB platform is what they currently have, regardless of what they have,
unless there is a very compelling reason to switch.

>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
>