Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft

"frank(at)wiles(dot)org (Frank Wiles)" wrote in pgsql.performance:

> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 19:01:38 +0000 (UTC)
> Randolf Richardson <rr(at)8x(dot)ca> wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs.
>> Oracle
>> vs. Microsoft SQL Server. Recently someone has been trying to
>> convince my 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> While this doesn't exactly answer your question, I use this little
> tidbit of information when "selling" people on PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL
> was chosen over Oracle as the database to handle all of the .org TLDs
> information. While I don't believe the company that won was chosen
> solely because they used PostgreSQL vs Oracle ( vs anything else ),
> it does go to show that PostgreSQL can be used in a large scale
> environment.

Do you have a link for that information? I've told a few people about
this and one PostgreSQL advocate (thanks to me -- they were going to be a
Microsoft shop before that) is asking.

> Another tidbit you can use in this particular case: I was involved
> in moving www.ljworld.com, www.lawrence.com, and www.kusports.com from
> a Sybase backend to a PostgreSQL backend back in 2000-2001. We got
> roughly a 200% speed improvement at that time and PostgreSQL has only
> improved since then. I would be more than happy to elaborate on this
> migration off list if you would like. kusports.com gets a TON of
> hits especially during "March Madness" and PostgreSQL has never been
> an issue in the performance of the site.

SyBase is better suited to the small projects in my opinion. I have a
number of customers in the legal industry who have to use it because the
products they use have a proprietary requirement for it. Fortunately it's
quite stable, and uses very little in the way of system resources, but
there is a license fee -- I'm not complaining at all, it has always been
working well for my clients.