Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date: 2005-01-13 01:28:32
Message-ID: a32731aff83e4c4e0800a00d9692b719@biglumber.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> Oracle is not that expensive - standard one can be got for $149/user
> or $5k/CPU, and for most applications, the features in standard one
> are fine.

Don't forget your support contract cost, as well as licenses for each
of your servers: development, testing, QA, etc.

Is it really as "cheap" as 5K? I've heard that for any fairly modern
system, it's much more, but that may be wrong.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200501122029
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFB5c8gvJuQZxSWSsgRAhRzAKDeWZ9LE2etLspiAiFCG8OeeEGoHwCgoLhb
crxreFQ2LNVjAp24beDMK5g=
=C59m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2005-01-13 02:11:12 Re: Postgres Optimizer is not smart enough?
Previous Message Ragnar Hafstað 2005-01-13 00:50:16 Re: Postgres Optimizer is not smart enough?