Re: Database market share 2004

DA Morgan wrote:
> Jurgen Haan wrote:

> There is another important reason too: Instrumentation. If they are
> slow diagnosing why is a question of making guesses. That may be a
> reasonable approach when supporting a small non-commercial web site.
> It is a non-starter when talking terabytes and a requirement for 7x24.
> And then there's that little problem with government requirements
> around audits. They just aren't ready for prime-time.

24x7 is actually no problem with OSS db's like Postgres. At the company where I work we have a DB2 DB and a Postgres DB running. Neither of them have to be taken down during maintenance.

Neither databases crash.

DB2 is way faster than Postgres. But as I stated earlier hardware is getting faster in an enormous rate, making the speed less important (note the less here, it will still be important).

The size of the database it not a problem with postgres, terrabyte database... ok..
What's a big problem with postgres (and actually one of the main reasons why we don't use it for our sensitive information) and that's that postgres is extremely unrelyable in high TPS situations. Scalability with OSS databases just plain sucks (if any).

But still I think OSS databases are to be reconed with.

It's the same as the early 90s, Linux, what a cute little project, but it surely will never be of any importance. Now, just take a look a the linux population among Internet web servers.

-R- Received on Fri Jun 03 2005 - 02:44:39 CDT