Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft

Alex Turner wrote:
> I appreciate your information, but it's not valid.  Most people don't
> need RAC or table partitioning.

 From a small company perspective, maybe, but not in the least invalid
for larger companies.

> Many of the features in Oracle EE are just not available in Postgresql at all, and many aren't available in
> any version of SQL Server (table partitioning, bitmap indexes and
> others).

I never claimed otherwise. I said the low end product gets you hooked.
Once you're hooked, you'll start to wish for all the wiz-bang features
-- after all, that's why you picked Oracle in the first place.

> Just because Oracle reps are a little clueless
> sometimes doesn't mean that the product pricing sucks.
> The minimum user requirement for standard one is 5 users.  5*149=$745,
> much less than half the price of a dual or single CPU config.

And what happens once you need a quad server?

> I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with Oracle, but Oracle is a
> fine product, that is available for not alot of $$ if you are willing
> to use a bit of elbow grease to learn how it works and don't need
> enterprise features, which many other database product simply don't
> have, or work very poorly.

I never said I had a "bad experience" with Oracle. I pointed out the
gotchas. We have several large Oracle boxes running, several MSSQL, and
several Postgres -- they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

Nuff said -- this thread is way off topic now...

Joe