Re: Oracle comparison

It sounds like your programmers are the classic 'jacks of all trades'. People like that are dangerous. They know just enough to make you think they know alot about alot of things, but not enough to really do any of them quite well. They often think they can... which causes alot of problems.

Is it in your budget to find an independent DB consulting company that has people with experience in multiple platforms to come in and give you a cost/benefit analysis? Oracle is very good, but its very expensive. The Oracle people you have to hire are also more expensive than people who do other databases. ITs also more complex so if you dont get the right people you have problems...

I know consultants can be expensive, but the economy is slow and you might be able to negotiate a deal.

A few points... yes SQL is open source but it is implemented differently in different databases. I have seen quite a few questions on here from former SQL Server people on how to do the same thing in Oracle. People often fall into the trap of wanting to make everything cross platform... problem is you dont take advantage of any of the best features in any of the tools so you end up with a mediocre application that is wonderfully portable.

BTW, who and what URL is running a 4TB database with open source? I have to see it to believe it. What kind of concurrency load do they have? Do they have complex business rules? Just curious... I hear these kinds of things thrown around sometimes and would like to check them out to satisfy my curiousity.

"Generic Poster" <nospam_at_nospam.com> wrote in message news:3D0FB725.127ABC3A_at_nospam.com...
> Daniel Morgan wrote:
> >
> > Generic Poster wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, at the risk of flamebait, I would like to ask you to comment on
> > > how or why you think Oracle compares favorably with other db products,
> > > both commercial and free. We do web development, and were recently
> > > contacted by a client who wants us to design a db for him on the web,
> > > which would be like a data warehouse for, say, up to 100 little
> > > webstores. We do not know a tremendous amount about the db field,
> > > though we can make them just fine. We recommended at first MySQL,
then
> > > decided on PostgreSQL. The question also came up whether a commercial
> > > db would be the answer. We felt that at less than 4 TB, open source
> > > would do well but that more than that, commercial might be the way to
> > > go.
> > >
> > > So, feel free to comment, knock the competition, point me to some
> > > webpages, whatever....
> >
> > I guess it sort of depends on a lot of factors. Things like:
> >
> > 1. Stability
> > 2. Security
> > 3. Performance
> > 4. Need for advanced features
> > 5. Need for support
> > 6. Need for educational materials to support future development and
> > maintenance
> > 7. Concerns about whether the vendor will still be in business in five
> > years
> >
> > Quite frankly I am very bothered by the thought that you, and your
company,
> > would consider using a complex product of which you appear to know
little
> > and expect to create anything but a complete disaster.
>
> Well.....it was more the case that we were avoiding the commercial SW
> option, or attempting to avoid it. That is why we recommended
> PostgreSQL. But we were curious about what the advantages of using the
> commercial stuff were, and wanted to broaden our knowledge of this
> area. The problem would have been that I do not have many employees who
> know much about the commercial db's. I have a few guys who have worked
> with MS SQL, and, in answer to your question, I do have one employee who
> says he has experience working on Oracle. :) So, that was why Oracle
> was in the game. If the client would have decided on Oracle, I would
> have had that worker build it. No, *I* don't know Oracle very well but
> I believe my worker knows it pretty well....anway, he lists it on his
> CV, and he has Oracle installed on his development box at home. :)
>
> You are correct, if we had no Oracle experience, we may have had to blow
> off the job if the client insisted on a solution. Thx for your
> comments, though. Some of my workers here tell me, "All these SQL db's
> are pretty much the same. If you know SQL, you can work with any of
> them." Looks like this is not true.
>
> How can you, in good
> > conscience, think you could possibly create a good product in Oracle?
>
> We weren't really considering it. We recommended PostgreSQL. We are
> *curious* about learning more about Oracle. That said, I do have a
> programmer who claims he can do Oracle programming. :) His experience
> is Oracle 8i. And he does have an Oracle dev box at home. :)
>
> Do
> > you understand multiversioning? Do you understand Oracle's transaction
and
> > locking models?
>
> You have to ask my programmer. These are the things that I would like
> to learn about myself. I basically am just a capitalist who does
> nothing more than funds and runs this company here; my IT knowledge is
> somewhat limited (not a programmer). My employees are the ones who know
> about this stuff. That said, considering it is my company, I do have to
> know a bit about that stuff.
> >
> > Given that the likely outcome of this is that you will just make a huge
and
> > expensive mess ... let me suggest Microsoft SQL Server to you as an
> > excellent choice.
>
> No, we are sticking with PostgreSQL. We know we can do a nice
> PostgreSQL database. We have done them before. :) And, no, they were
> not huge, expensive messes. :)
>
> You really don't know what kind of a company I run here. We blow off
> work all the time because we either don't have the skills, or don't have
> the skills at moment, or the present crop of employees has poor skills
> in that area, or whatever......I don't like to do crappy work, unlike so
> many of my competitors.
Received on Tue Jun 18 2002 - 22:23:41 CDT