Re: [PLUG] Can Open Source Replace Oracle?

[greg@turnstep.com]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> Because PostgreSQL can't come close to serving large databases at
> the speed that Oracle can (we're talking orders of magnitude here),
> because MySQL fails the ACID test, because neither is capable of
> accessing raw disk in an even remotely sane way (Veritas quick I/O
> is what they're almost definitely using with Oracle) and because
> switching to *anything* is a HUGE development cost.

I seriously doubt that this is a database of the size where Oracle 
would be that much different than PostgreSQL. The disk access argument 
is also not very valid - PostgreSQL relies on the underlying OS 
(usually Linux or BSD) which has come a long way in the last few 
years. Yes, the switching will be tough, but Oracle and PostgreSQL 
are very close in syntax, and again I doubt that the database in 
question here is really that complicated or large.

>> For the record, Hallwatch runs MySQL and Zope on an 800 Mhz
>> Celeron, 512 MB RAM, 40 GB HD off of a shared T-1 connection.
> Which would be totally insufficient to the task you'd like to ask of it.

Hard to say without knowing more about the DB, but I would tend to 
agree with you that more would be needed than this. At the very least, 
more RAM (which is still nice and cheap).


> Four years' data is around 1 million rows.
> ...
> I really doubt Postgres will hold up under more than a couple of
> years of data

Half a million rows? Not a problem.


> I'm not sure how that could possibly make a difference. The city has
> no reason to believe that we're not completely figments of your
> imagination unless we show up and testify, do they?

I would assume that from their prior dealings with him, they have no reason 
to believe he would pull such a stunt. Besides, my messages are digitally 
signed <grin>.


>> > 1. Doing so would overburden the City's Internet connection.
>> The city exists to serve the people. If the bandwidth becomes an
>> issue (and I seriously doubt it will), then the city should upgrade
>> their connection. That's like arguing that new roads could overburden
>> the city's traffic, so they should not be built.
>
> No, it's like arguing that running SEPTA lines like the R3 every ten
> minutes rather than every hour would overburden the rails and the
> infrastructure

Hard to really tell anything without seeing some more facts. I find it hard 
to imagine that searches on land owndership records would really amount 
to more than a small percentage of the City's traffic.


> It's *possible* for the city to spend more on Internet service, but
> where do you think it's written that it's their obligation to
> provide this information to you at your convenience swallowing all
> costs themselves? (And if your suggestion is that our taxes should
> pay for this, then you need to take your argument to the people who
> allocate tax funds.)

I don't think he is arguing that the city swallow all costs, but providing 
information to the public seems to be one of the functions of a government, 
as evidenced by all the Freedom of Information laws enacted in the last 
decade. One could even argue that providing records online is not only 
more convienent but cheaper than having to provide hard copy and/or make 
trips downtown. Certainly the Internet should be seen as the primary way 
of disseminating public information in this day and age.


>> Sounds like a very poor licensing decision.
> It's not a decision, it's all Oracle will sell you these days.

Bad decision to go with Oracle, then. I'm not up on their latest 
licensing options.


>> PostgreSQL would definitely be up to the job.
>I strongly disagree.
>
>How many rows are in the largest Postgres database you've dealt with?
>
>How much data (byte-wise)?
>
>What indexes?

Kind of useless without knowing the details about what they require, but 
since you asked: well over 6 million rows, tons of indexes, stored procedures, 
triggers, foreign keys, etc. Postgres scales very well. It's not at Oracle's 
level yet, but for 99% of the databases in the world, it does not need 
to be.

>> Support for PostgreSQL can be purchased from many companies.
>
>Name two.

http://techdocs.postgresql.org/companies.php


> Could you compare the costs, including the labor time of development
> to convert, please?

Not without knowing more about the database. But the conversion is a 
one-time thing. Oracle licenses are forever.


- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200304091657
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: http://www.turnstep.com/pgp.html

iD8DBQE+lIm6vJuQZxSWSsgRApqPAKDJIGq4UAhFriP/cGOFyAxE3HuNwACgtWa0
ORCSooE/aZaCnccmUeI7ojs=
=h/X1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group        --       http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug