-----Original Message----- From: Frank Wiles
...
Oracle is really only necessary if you need to run a HUGE database across multiple servers. Otherwise, it's just a waste of money.
Unless you get it for free. ;') But really that comparison is hardly just. Oracle is not cheap, but there is a lot more to Oracle than just the RDB, and there are other factors to consider than just size and distribution. However, I'd probably not recommend Oracle for a new implementation if MySQL or PostgreSQL could handle the data and load expected of the implementation. Including future needs. No sense in going with MySQL if you are expecting to get the outsourcing contract for Wal-Mart's inventory database. ;')
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:56:47 -0600 "Brian Densmore" <DensmoreB@ctbsonline.com> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Frank Wiles
...
Oracle is really only necessary if you need to run a HUGE database across multiple servers. Otherwise, it's just a waste of money.
Unless you get it for free.
;')
Well yeah, but Oracle is so much more resource intensive and demanding of the admin vs an open source alternative.
But really that comparison is hardly just. Oracle is not cheap, but there is a lot more to Oracle than just the RDB, and there are other factors to consider than just size and distribution. However, I'd probably not recommend Oracle for a new implementation if MySQL or PostgreSQL could handle the data and load expected of the implementation. Including future needs. No sense in going with MySQL if you are expecting to get the outsourcing contract for Wal-Mart's inventory database.;')
Yes Oracle can do much more than be a database and if you need those features I guess you should use it. But as a database I find the "reward" has never in my experience been worth the effort. Also, on the right hardware you could easily handle wal-mart's inventory on something like PostgreSQL. The .info and .org TLDs are run off a PostgreSQL database. It has also been my experience that while you have tons of options for tuning Oracle, out of the box it isn't very fast when compared to default PostgreSQL and MySQL. A couple of quick tweaks to PostgreSQL and the difference is even greater. The right DBA can make Oracle purr however, it has just always seemed to a ton of work to get it right. --------------------------------- Frank Wiles <frank@wiles.org> http://www.wiles.org ---------------------------------
Frank Wiles wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:56:47 -0600 "Brian Densmore" <DensmoreB@ctbsonline.com> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Frank Wiles ...
Oracle is really only necessary if you need to run a HUGE database across multiple servers. Otherwise, it's just a waste of money.
Unless you get it for free.
;')
Well yeah, but Oracle is so much more resource intensive and demanding of the admin vs an open source alternative.
In talking to DBAs that maintain both, DB2 requires about half the staff to maintain as an Oracle database. DB2 outperforms Oracle in most of the recent benchmark tests, and it's a bit cheaper. There is a tremendous support system for DB2, as, I'm sure, there is for Oracle. Most larger companies, the many multi million in revenue and up crowd, would rather have that professional, paid for, on-demand kind of support to give the management warm and fuzzys when entrusting all the data that runs the company. That item alone will keep Oracle, DB2, and SQL Server in business for decades to come. This is probably a space where the OS DBMSs will begin to encroach, however. Now, the SMB market, is completely different, IMHO. When the bottom line is a much smaller number, license and support fees matter a whole lot more. That's where MySQL and Postgres will have the most success in the near term. There are also smaller projects in the larger shops that will probably start utilizing OS DBMSs.
But really that comparison is hardly just. Oracle is not cheap, but there is a lot more to Oracle than just the RDB, and there are other factors to consider than just size and distribution. However, I'd probably not recommend Oracle for a new implementation if MySQL or PostgreSQL could handle the data and load expected of the implementation. Including future needs. No sense in going with MySQL if you are expecting to get the outsourcing contract for Wal-Mart's inventory database.;')
Yes Oracle can do much more than be a database and if you need those features I guess you should use it. But as a database I find the "reward" has never in my experience been worth the effort.
Also, on the right hardware you could easily handle wal-mart's inventory on something like PostgreSQL. The .info and .org TLDs are run off a PostgreSQL database.
WalMart is a big DB2 shop. Huge.
It has also been my experience that while you have tons of options for tuning Oracle, out of the box it isn't very fast when compared to default PostgreSQL and MySQL. A couple of quick tweaks to PostgreSQL and the difference is even greater. The right DBA can make Oracle purr however, it has just always seemed to a ton of work to get it right.
Having the knobs to tweak, and the third party apps to monitor and tune can make enormous differences in a data base engine. Out of the box, you probably have a point, and that's why the SMB market is the first target of these data bases. The large enterprise, for a variety of reasons, will take a bit longer to crack, but that too will probably happen. Just like predictions of the mainframe's death were mostly premature, any predictions of the demise of enterprise level data base management systems is probably just pure speculation. There will be room for both, I suspect. Peace, Jim -- Progressive Values ARE American Values Responsibility, Empathy, Freedom, Opportunity, Prosperity, Fairness, Trust, Honesty, Open Communication, Community, Cooperation http://musicalprogress.org/
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:09:18 -0600 Jim Herrmann <kclug@itdepends.com> wrote:
Just like predictions of the mainframe's death were mostly premature, any predictions of the demise of enterprise level data base management systems is probably just pure speculation. There will be room for both, I suspect.
Yeah I'm always a little premature. I started predicting the demise of commercial Unix back in 1998 and it hasn't really started happening until now. --------------------------------- Frank Wiles <frank@wiles.org> http://www.wiles.org ---------------------------------
I'm a little confused on the exact lineage of DB2, but isn't it Open Source? The confusion stems in part from the fact that a lot of typical Linux components, sendmail for instance, use "DB2" format databases for internal functions. Then there's the big announcement by IBM that they were releasing DB2 to OS a year or so ago. Are we all talking about the same software here?
Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
I'm a little confused on the exact lineage of DB2, but isn't it Open Source?
The confusion stems in part from the fact that a lot of typical Linux components, sendmail for instance, use "DB2" format databases for internal functions.
You might be thinking of Berkeley DB. It's a lightweight, flat-file, non-relational database: http://www.sleepycat.com/.
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
I'm a little confused on the exact lineage of DB2, but isn't it Open Source?
No.
The confusion stems in part from the fact that a lot of typical Linux components, sendmail for instance, use "DB2" format databases for internal functions.
No, they use Berkeley db are some variant of the idea.
Then there's the big announcement by IBM that they were releasing DB2 to OS a year or so ago.
Hmmm.... I doubt it. They released a database written in Java, but DB2 is IBM's answer to a database for the big iron. //========================================================\\ || D. Hageman <dhageman@dracken.com> || \\========================================================//
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 11:56 am, Brian Densmore wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Frank Wiles But really that comparison is hardly just. Oracle is not cheap, but there is a lot more to Oracle than just the RDB, and there are other factors to consider than just size and distribution. However, I'd probably not recommend Oracle for a new implementation if MySQL or PostgreSQL could handle the data and load expected of the implementation. Including future needs. No sense in going with MySQL if you are expecting to get the outsourcing contract for Wal-Mart's inventory database. ;')
Let's not forget that CA recently released Ingres under a oss license. Lot like postgres (since postgres forked from older version of ingres). Ingres has some features that make it very attractive, high availability, clustering, table partitioning, parallel query's, etc.... I like postgres a lot, but find myself getting excited about ingres
participants (7)
-
Bill Cavalieri -
Brian Densmore -
D. Hageman -
Frank Wiles -
Gerald Combs -
Jim Herrmann -
Jonathan Hutchins