Re: Apparently the real competition is Sybase...

I had Sybase on an SGI machine once. A Sybase engineer told me that if
I thought using a raw disk was going to be faster (instead of going through
the usual filesystem overhead) -- I would discover that it was slower.
This was around 1995. I appreciated the honesty of the engineer.
Of course, marketing would tell you raw disks were faster.

douglas

Robert Treat wrote:

>Taken from an article discussing recent additions to the osx platform
>(http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=877426788&fp=16&fpid=0)
>
>"OS X ships with two open source database managers, MySQL and
>PostGresQL. However, for large-scale databases, these free options may
>not suffice. To fill that gap, Sybase has ported its enterprise-grade
>DBMS, ASE (Adaptive Server Enterprise), to OS X. ASE 12.5 delivers the
>full range of capabilities found in Unix and Windows editions of
>Sybase's server, including scaling, data protection, graphical
>management, and a rich SQL command set. "
>
>To be honest I can't recall ever using it, but I can't imagine sybase
>having better scaling, data protection, or better SQL command set than
>postgresql. Anyone have the insider knowledge on what makes sybase so
>good or can we chalk this one up to the "clueless pundit" factor?
>
>Robert Treat
>
>