Oracle - DB2

[Jim Herrmann]

Frank Wiles wrote:

>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. 
>  
>
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/