Re: Suitable response to Oracle?

Oleg Bartunov schrieb am 22.03.2016 um 22:28:
> Actually, some companies, which was thinking about migration to postgres, asked us to reply to Oracle letter. I'd appreciate any help.

You could point out the statements were Oracle is plain wrong.

> PostgreSQL has no recovery manager.

While it's true that there there is no such tool built-in, tools like barman or pg_rman are on-par with RMAN

> Multitenant allows to consolidate multiple databases into a single container

Postgres supported multiple databases in a single container ages before Oracle was even thinking about doing that

> Active Data Guard

Postgres streaming replication with a hot standby is exactly the same thing

> Tools to optimize client connections to the database, connection pools, various types of client drivers and libraries.

Also completely wrong. There are several pooling tools available (pgBouncer, pgPool). There are sever ODBC, JDBC and .Net drivers

> No materialized views

Postgres _does_ have MVIEWS (although they lack the ability for incremental refresh and there is no query-rewrite magic)

> No Advanced Compression

Postgres compresses values out of the box. While storage might not be as efficient (Oracle's advanced compression includes de-duping) my experience is that _accessing_ the compressed (text) data is much more efficient in Postgres compared to Oracle.

> Polyglot Persistence - support for semi-structured (JSON, XML) and unstructured (Key/Value) data

Postgres had a key/value store usable within SQL long before Oracle did. Oracle's key/value store is a branded BerkelyDB and can not be used inside SQL statements. Postgres also had JSON support earlier than Oracle did. And the JSON documents can be indexed more efficiently in Postgres.
While Postgres does have XML support, Oracle's implementation has some more features.