On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Greg Smith <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Greg Williamson wrote: >> >> Our tests -- very much oriented at postGIS found Oracle to be between 5 >> and 15% _faster_ depending on the specifics of the task. We decided to go >> with postgres given the price difference (several hundred thousand dollars >> for >> Oracle in the configuration we needed vs. zip for postgres -- we already >> had >> trained postgres DBAs). >> > > Can always throw the licensing savings toward larger hardware too; $100K > buys a pretty big server nowadays. Hear hear! You can get a quad x 12 core (48 cores total) server with 128G ram and 32 15k6 hard drives for well under $25k nowadays. For $50k or so you can throw 100 hard drives at the problem. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
