Re: Comparing databases

josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com (Josh Berkus) writes:
> Given Chris's interest in this topic and that he already has
> database comparison stuff on this web page, I'd like to nominate
> Chris to put together a database comparison worksheet.
>
> Chris, I've then entire archives of Advocacy list in mbox format for
> your perusal, if you like.

Based on the length of the steadily-expanding thread, I'm not
convinced that I still have a clear feel, at the moment, for the
overall scope of the document that is supposed to emerge from this.

I think a mistake is coming out, namely that people are losing focus
on the fact that the document needs to be very carefully limited in
scope. Jussi Mikkola started this thread with an article with the
excellent point that the Big Guys' marketing material carefully LIMITS
what it says.

They don't talk at all about algorithms, but they also don't name
their competitors and try to do in-depth comparisons, and I think
that's with good reasons that haven't been mentioned, namely:

- The potential for legal liability, and

- If you start talking about [Brand Y], that will be taken as
a suggestion that the reader consider [Brand Y] as an alternative
to your product.

My would-be wording of:

"Support for PostgreSQL development and deployment is provided by a
number of different companies, alleviating the risks associated with
products controlled exclusively by a single vendor."

has, amongst its merits, that it states merits of PostgreSQL without
any need to name the vendors of other databases. There's no need to
back up grandiose claims about "qualified, dedicated, diverse support
channels." Indeed, I wouldn't want to say any of that at all. The
"PHB point" is that the diversity _alleviates risk_.

Indeed, if I were to elaborate on this, the direction I would go would
involve pointing to the changes to the DB vendor landscape over the
last ten years that should cause _risk_ to be a concern. Numerous
DBMSes have disappeared due to corporate reorganization, and that's a
Substantial Business Risk.

- People that adopted Adabas-D on Linux saw it _disappear_. It
became SAP-DB, but that has proven risky too, as that is
disappearing soon in favor of MaxDB, controlled by yet another
vendor.

- Those that adopted MySQL on the basis of it being "Free Software"
are doubtless realizing that it Isn't So Free, and should be quite
concerned about the _fact of the single vendor_.

- If I were an Informix VAR, I'd be _really_ concerned after the IBM
acquisition. Informix was a Really Big Company; size doesn't
forcibly mitgate risk.

- I don't quite understand how Sybase is still in business, unless
Microsoft is still paying them some royalties on SQL Server...

The PostgreSQL is not immune to all risk, but the diversity of
community participation is highly significant in cutting that risk.

I really don't want to get into evaluating the quality of support
vendors when I haven't bought from them, and so can only have a _very_
limited ability to speak to that.

Keeping to a tight focus is a vital.
--
(format nil "~S(at)~S" "cbbrowne" "ntlug.org")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/postgresql.html
I can see clearly now, the brain is gone...