RE: Oracle out the door

From: Derek Rodner <>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:54:27 -0400
Message-ID: <>


Thanks for the reply. I was hoping I did not offend. :)

Yes, the license cost for some can be an issue, but in reality it is more of a "support" cost than anything else. Have you taken a look at the new products? We have cobranded our products now and Postgres Plus is fully open source. Essentially, it is PostgreSQL, plus many of the most common and most requested contrib. and add-on modules pre-integrated & tested with a nice graphical installer. So, for example, our GridSQL (GPLv2) parallel query product is built in, along with Slony replication and PostGIS.

Postgres Plus Advanced Server is the same product with the addition of advanced DBA Monitoring and, of course, Oracle compatibility. Both products have new pricing as well. So, for $4500/socket, you get it all.

Anyway, enough of my marketing pitch. I am sorry, I can't help myself.

As for your questions, you should really check out Postgres Plus (or even PostgreSQL). Version 8.3 included a new patch called HOT (Heap-Only Tuples) which dramatically improves performance, especially over long periods of time. The database has really made significant strides in the last 2 releases and its speed is so much better now.

8.2 added an auto-vacuum feature that eliminates the need for you to do it all the time and Postgres Plus Advanced Server includes Bulk Bind and Bulk Collect (just like Oracle) to further increase performance. In addition, both include connection pooling and the ability to set-up a distributed memory cache (across multiple servers) to increase performance.

Finally, the issue you mention about where to place the actual files has long since gone away. You can put the individual files wherever you want. In addition, you can partition the files based on any number of different criteria so a single table can be spread across multiple servers/disks.

As far as the re-engineering is concerned, yes, you will always have that. In fact, from what I understand, you may even run into that when upgrading from one version to the next in other databases (Oracle???). But, with every release we add deeper and deeper Oracle compatibility and our Migration Studio is greatly improved. You will find that it is a lot less work now than the last time you tried.

I know that was probably a little long-winded for what you wanted, but I am aim to please. ;)

Derek M. Rodner
Director, Marketing
EnterpriseDB Corporation

732.331.1333 office
484.252.1943 cell

-----Original Message-----
From: Goulet, Dick [] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:08 AM
To: Derek Rodner;; Cc:
Subject: RE: Oracle out the door


        Shameless plug indeed, but good product as I have tried using it in the past. The problem is that it comes with a license cost which in some shops is the "blue screen of death" since it can be downloaded & used directly from And even though EnterpriseDB has done a very good job of porting Oracle functionality into PostgreSql, it's not 100% transparent which means some re-engineering nonetheless.

        BTW: When I was using PostGreSql I had two real problems with it that I believe have been fixed & maybe you can comment on the fixes. The first was the need to "vacuum" the db regularly so that the equivalent of the Oracle SCN would not wrap onto itself. The second was that all of the db files had to be on a single mount point so that your database was limited to the size of a mount and if you ever got it to 100% used the db would crash, badly.

Dick Goulet / Capgemini
North America P&C / East Business Unit
Senior Oracle DBA / Hosting
Office: 508.573.1978 / Mobile: 508.742.5795 / Fax: 508.229.2019 / Email: 45 Bartlett St. / Marlborough, MA 01752

Together: the Collaborative Business Experience

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Derek Rodner Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 6:10 PM
To:; Cc:
Subject: RE: Oracle out the door

Sorry, but I am going to put a shameless plug in here. Has your company looked at EnterpriseDB? It is based on Postgres, but we added a ton of Oracle features including PL/SQL syntax support, Oracle Packages, system views, stored procedures, etc, etc, etc.

Ok, shameless plug over.

Derek M. Rodner
Director, Marketing
EnterpriseDB Corporation

732.331.1333 office
484.252.1943 cell

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Gints Plivna Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Oracle out the door

Following ideas comes to mind:
1) Have you/your company considered other editions than EE? I.e. SE, SE One, trying to get discounts, optimizing (e.g. throwing several apps on the same boxes) environments?
2) Have you/your company calculated all other costs connected with database change i.e. staff skills, possibility to rebuild applications totally from scratch, possibility to have various kind of problems because of lack of knowledge and migration to other DBMSes? A while ago I've summarized a few criteria for choosing DBMS and the main message I'd like to offer is - as probably everyone knows - the cost of DB is not the same as the cost of DBMS licence. In case anyone is interested the article is here

Gints Plivna

2008/4/29 John Thompson <>:
> Company I work for just announced that we're going to convert all but
2 of
> our 89 Oracle databases to either SQL Server, MYSQL, or PostgreSQL.
> is due to the high licensing cost. I'm bummed.



This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential
and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is 
intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are not authorized to 
read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message
or any part thereof. If you receive this message 
in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of
this message.

Received on Wed Apr 30 2008 - 08:54:27 CDT

Original text of this message