Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?

On 6/6/07, Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> wrote:
> Last time I checked, Oracle didn't have anything close to this.

When did you check, 15 years ago? Oracle has direct-path
import/export and data pump; both of which make generic COPY look like
a turtle. The new PostgreSQL bulk-loader takes similar concepts from
Oracle and is fairly faster than COPY.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-PostgreSQL... but spouting personal
observations on other databases as facts just boasts an
PostgreSQL-centric egotistical view of the world. If you don't tune
Oracle, it will suck. If you don't understand Oracle architecture
when you tune an application, it will suck; just like PostgreSQL.
People who don't have extensive experience in the other databases just
hear what you say and regurgitate it as fact; which it is not.

Look at how many people in these lists still go on and on about MySQL
flaws based on their experience with MySQL 3.23. Times change and it
doesn't do anyone any good to be ignorant of other databases. If
you're going to speak about another database in a comparison, please
stay current or specify the database you're comparing against.

This is nothing against you, but it always starts an avalanche of,
"look how perfect we are compared to everyone else."

--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/