-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jonah H. Harris wrote: > Certainly, but can one expect to get a realistic answer to an, "is > Oracle fearing something" question on he PostgreSQL list? Or was it > just a backhanded attempt at pushing the topic again? My vote is for > the latter; it served no purpose other than to push the > competitiveness topic again. Well, I'm a cynic at heart, really. So there was no bad intend behind it. And it was a nice comment, because I would base it on my personal experiences with certain vendors, it wouldn't be near as nice. The original question was about comparisons between PG and Oracle. Now, I could answer this question from my personal experiences with the product and support. That would be way more stronger worded than my small cynic question. Another thing, Joshua posted a guesstimate that PG can compete in 90-95% cases with Oracle. Because Oracle insists on secrecy, I'm somehow inclined to believe the side that talks openly. And while I don't like to question Joshua's comment, I think he overlooked one set of problems, namely the cases where Oracle is not able to compete with PG. It's hard to quantify how many of these cases there are performance-wise, well, because Oracle insists on that silly NDA, but there are clearly cases where PG is superior. Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGds8WHJdudm4KnO0RAvb0AJ4gBec4yikrAOvDi5C3kc5NLGYteACghewU PkfrnXgCRfZlEdeMA2DZGTE= =BpUw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
