Jernigan, Kevin wrote:
On 3/25/16, 4:37 AM, "pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Mark Morgan Lloyd" <pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of markMLl.pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just because a corporate has a hundred sites cooperating for inventory
management doesn't mean that the canteen menus have to be stored on
Oracle RAC :-)
Right, but often the customer has paid for a site license, in which case the IT department will just keep spinning up more Oracle (or SQL Server or DB2) databases when requests come in - even if it’s overkill for the proposed use case / workload, it’s less work if IT only has one database technology to support.
OTOH, if the license takes the number of CPUs/cores into account then
adding even unsophisticated unrelated databases will, eventually, cost.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
