Re: PostgreSQL advocacy

Jernigan, Kevin wrote:
> On 3/25/16, 4:37 AM, "pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org on behalf of Mark Morgan Lloyd" <pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org on behalf of markMLl(dot)pgsql-general(at)telemetry(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:

>> Just because a corporate has a hundred sites cooperating for inventory
>> management doesn't mean that the canteen menus have to be stored on
>> Oracle RAC :-)
>>
> Right, but often the customer has paid for a site license, in which case the IT department will just keep spinning up more Oracle (or SQL Server or DB2) databases when requests come in - even if it’s overkill for the proposed use case / workload, it’s less work if IT only has one database technology to support.

OTOH, if the license takes the number of CPUs/cores into account then
adding even unsophisticated unrelated databases will, eventually, cost.

--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]