Re: Trade Study on Oracle vs. PostgreSQL

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres-General General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Trade Study on Oracle vs. PostgreSQL
Date: 2010-09-24 16:20:00
Message-ID: AANLkTim0CoyDU9hxkufDOp+Mx3FKxoLSSrwkVxe1z1EA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> wrote:
> Again, you'd need to run them on comparable hardware and tune them both well.

Actually I'd argue that pgsql gets better hardware since you can spend
the money you'd spend on oracle licenses on hardware for pgsql. At
$20k per cpu on oracle (or more if you need clustering, GIS, or a few
other features) you can buy a pretty damned impressive pgsql server to
compete.

But definitely don't put pgsql on an old workstation and expect it to
keep up with a real server running oracle that's been tuned properly.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Carlos Mennens 2010-09-24 17:15:39 Front End Application (OFF-TOPIC)
Previous Message Gauthier, Dave 2010-09-24 16:14:19 Re: Trade Study on Oracle vs. PostgreSQL