Re: Interesting info about Oracle

Keith wrote:
> I don't mean this as a flame but.. I am really worried about dancing
> with the devil (oracle). Also my rectum is sacred and is a one-way
> street. Last thing I want is to end up shelling out thousands because
> of some new Oracle "tactic." It appears that you can't get any
> objective decission making opinions from this brain-washed Oracle
> crowd. It feels like you are not preaching to the choir here but
> preaching to the alter-boys who like to take it in rear
> (oracle-DBAs). Come on people, get objective about spending your
> company's or tax-payer's money.

So, yould you get an "objective" decision making from IBM or Microsoft? Face it: *YOU* make the decision who to give the money to.

What do you want with your db? Do you need views? Can you shut it down for backup? Is a file based backup feasible at all or is the db too large? Tables >2Gb? Replication? What about security? I've heard that db2 passwords sit unencrypted in the first datafile (unbelievable for me, so you want to check this). How many apps will you run on your server?

If you are clear on this, then get the oracle and ibm guys into your company and let them demonstrate on your machines. Then you'll know.

What *I* know is that you have to add another US$5000 to the oracle price because someone needs to do the ten day dba course. That assumes you've got someone who does have a bit of db experience (knows what sql is etc.).

What speaks for oracle and against mysql/postgres is IMHO that it has features which you simply won't get on other db's, like all that memory configs and the different ways of doing replication, the partial sutting down possibilities and all the little screws which make it possible to run a reliable terabyte database at all.
It's a bit like buying an airplane. If you need mach 4 it doesn't matter that airbus is cheaper, you'll still go for lockheed because airbus won't give you that speed regardless of the price. Don't know about db2 but I expect it plays in the same league as oracle.

> I am really considering PostGreSQL. It is mature, stable and has many
> enterprise features including replication. Besides, not having any
> string attached leaves you calm. It is heavily used in mission
> critical implementations. The .ORG name service run on PostGreSQL.
We tried to use it once in a non-critical mission about two years ago. Result was that development was impossible on postgres because syntactically wrong sql code shot down the db. Dunno what you call "mature" but for me it's simply not an option. If you want to go cheap, go with mysql. If you want features, go with oracle or db2. The only significant drawback with mysql is that until very recently it didn't have views. (Has it now? Don't know.) But it was always rock stable. OTOH we also dodn't do any online backups.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

--
While it is a known fact that programmers
never make mistakes, it is still a good idea
to humor the users by checking for errors at
critical points in your program.
-Robert D. Schneider, "Optimizing INFORMIX
 Applications"