Re: Express Edition for Production

From: Hans Forbrich <fuzzy.graybeard_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:17:54 -0600
Message-ID: <51465D32.3050908_at_gmail.com>



Warehouse? Sure - lots of data, lots of data growth. Certainly not applicable to XE and possibly not SE.

Startup on click-stream analysis, sure, I can see needing multiple CPU, because it's OLAP-style workload.

Desire to store images or other multi-media. Yup, big data sets.

And with SE being socket based, allowing 8-core, quad-socket to be used can give a huge pile of CPU oooomph (since SE is licensed by socket, not core), but yah, it's expensive to run SE (4x$18K before discount) compared to Postgres.

So I'd say we agree - your examples are valid examples of where switching to EE is cost-prohibitive, and Postgres is a valid choice.

On the other hand, OTLP *for a small company (under 50-100 employees/contractors)* growing at 100GB or TB of data/day? Not in my neck of the woods.

I have example after example of small companies, NGOs, and small cities (under 100,000 residents) that can't even accumulate 1GB of financial data all told. They keep their info in MS-Access, and in that game, I'd rather see XE, mainly because they desperately want multi-user capability.

One size fits all? Not really. That's why a professional carpenter has several different styles of hammer - and has trained to use each effectively.

/Hans

On 17/03/2013 5:21 PM, Matthew Zito wrote:

>

> I just read the marketing docs - which still say 4GB. But fine, 11GB
> of data, thanks for correcting It's still almost nothing by today's
> standards. A friend of mine has a pre-launch startup whose data set
> goes up by 1GB a day. A startup customer of mine has a data
> warehouse that grows by 1TB/day. They ran on Oracle for a while using
> standard edition until they just couldn't take the (2 node? I don't
> remember) limitations, and got a quote for EE - and fell over
> laughing. Ported to a combination of PostgreSQL and Greenplum (I
> think), which was expensive and time-consuming, *but still 1/4 the
> cost of Oracle*. I have example after example of small companies that
> would be absolutely bankrupted by trying to run Oracle.
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Mon Mar 18 2013 - 01:17:54 CET

Original text of this message