Re: Database market share 2004

Paul wrote:
> DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org> 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.
>
>
> I have worked for a company (big player in its field) and had an
> interview with another (a giant in its field) where they had systems
> that ran on all of the major db's - SQL Server, Oracle, DB2 and
> Sybase.
>
> These db's contain(ed) neither triggers, SPs, PL/SQL, Transact SQL or
> any other proprietary features of any of these db's. The only coding
> that varied between the db's was how to get an
> autoinc/generator/sequence value and that was in some sort of middle
> layer. They did make use of DRI in the db creation scripts.
>
>
> I'm not saying that that's a good thing (in fact I'm appalled), but
> the fact of the matter is that many companies pay for expensive db's
> when in fact they are little more than bitbuckets.

But presumably large bit buckets. I'm not very up to date on PostGres and mysql features, but do OSS DB's support all these management operations that can be done in parallel to production operation? In Oracle you can create partitions on the fly without interrupting operations etc.

> I think that it's
> only a matter of time before the IT industry is going to wake up to
> the reality that (at least as far as *_I_* have seen) very little of
> the capacity of an Oracle or DB2 is actually being used and make the
> switch to cheaper or Open Source db's.

If they deliver the same robustness - it's not only about functionality features.

Kind regards

    robert Received on Thu Jun 02 2005 - 09:50:46 CDT