| gabriel rosenkoetter on Wed, 9 Apr 2003 17:30:14 -0400 |
|
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 09:06:30PM -0000, greg@turnstep.com wrote: > Sorry, I cannot let this one slip by. Neither can I. > Saying that Postgres cannot come close because it was *based* on > Ingress is like saying that Linux is not a good OS because it was > based on Minux. That's "Minix". And it's meaningless to suggest a correlation there. Postgres really is based on Ingress. Linux was written as a *reaction* to Minix. Minix is a microkernel architecture, Linux is a monolithic kernel. And things get more divergent from there. > I mostly agree with the rest however, and would add > this: the rare database that needs the full power of Oracle and cannot > have its needs met by PostgreSQL is the exception, not the rule. I've found that to be factually in incorrect in the real world of marketing database systems. As I said before, it's not *just* the Postgres that's the problem. It's the crappy file system, the crappy hardware, and the crappy memory access routines behind it. But even if I put Oracle in that same environment, it wins on time measurements reliably. And it beats sapdb too, apparently (the co-worker who played with it described sapdb as about the same performance as Postgres; this is SAP's freebie DB, not their big, scary one that they use in their only-through-our-front-end applications). -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgpRhPKOikxXf.pgp
|
|