Oracle

[Frank Wiles]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:56:47 -0600
"Brian Densmore" <DensmoreB at 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 at wiles.org>
   http://www.wiles.org
 ---------------------------------