On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 12:20 AM 9/25/2010, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Steve Atkins <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Again, you'd need to run them on comparable hardware and tune them both >> > well. >> >> Actually I'd argue that pgsql gets better hardware since you can spend >> the money you'd spend on oracle licenses on hardware for pgsql. At >> $20k per cpu on oracle (or more if you need clustering, GIS, or a few >> other features) you can buy a pretty damned impressive pgsql server to >> compete. >> >> But definitely don't put pgsql on an old workstation and expect it to >> keep up with a real server running oracle that's been tuned properly. > > I think Oracle usually gets better hardware, since if Management wants > Oracle, the expensive hardware doesn't look so expensive next to it :). > Whereas if Management gives you a tiny or zero budget, most sane people > don't go for Oracle (even though there are "first dose is free" options). So > your options then become Postgresql on an old workstation ;). That's very true. OTOH, I took an old workstation with a dual core CPU and put 4 SATA drives in it in RAID-10 and made a reporting server that was much faster than our Oracle server it grabbed the data from. So that's often a good way of getting your foot in the door. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
