Re: Big disappointment with Postgres
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:55:12 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 4, 8:18 am, Mladen Gogala <n..._at_email.here.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 06:43:03 -0800, gazzag wrote:
> > Seriously though, is this a fair comparison?
> No. It never was. It was never a question whether Postgres is in the same
> league as Oracle, the question was whether Postgres was good enough. For
> the applications developed from scratch, it might be. For the porting
> projects, it's definitely no good without the optimizer hints. You are
> required to either go commercial with EnterpriseDB or get one of the
> "gurus' involved, as a consulting gig. That's a very cozy situation,
> right there, for everybody involved. Consequently, Postgres is the only
> major database that distrusts its own users so deeply to even pronounce a
> fatwa against them on the official wiki.
> PostgreSQL does have sort of hints but they are ugly, inefficient and
> simply not enough for the large porting projects with a ton of SQL and a
> deadline. All thy hope abandon. I am adopting wait and see attitude to
> see if there will be a fork of the project or a new contender. Postgres
> is no good for migrating from Oracle.
I've long maintained that people underestimate the costs of open source, even when it was "download this spreadsheet application from DEC." Most programming methodologies are biased towards new projects. Most migrations are cat stampedes, too. I've never been convinced that there is any kind of project management that can handle a migration with a tight deadline. It's closer to winemaking than anything else - you can go for Thunderbird (there's some queasy high school memories), or sell none before its time.
-- _at_home.com is bogus. http://www.financialexpress.com/news/rs-526cr-suit-slapped-on-oracle-fin/745754/Received on Fri Feb 04 2011 - 10:55:12 CST