-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/28/07 17:11, Jeff Larsen wrote:
[snip]
>
> Lastly on the Informix side, they have more advanced online
> backup/restore tools. It's similar to PG PITR backup but does not
> depend on file-system level backup tools. The option I use (called
> ontape) stores data in a proprietary format to disk or tape. It also
> has an incremental backup option so you don't have to do a full dump
> every time. There is a more advanced Informix backup tool called
> onbar, but I haven't worked with it enough to comment on it.
>
> What does PG have going for it? Price, obviously. I'd love to have
> that $100k that I just spent back. PG has better conformance to SQL
> language standards, so portability of code would be easier. PG has
> some better built in functions and indexing features. I prefer the
> PLPGSQL language for stored procedures to Informix.PG has more options
> for stored procedure languages (python, perl). PG has table
> inheritance, Informix does not.
That's similar to how I'd compare PG to the niche legacy database
(Rdb/VMS) that we use.
> One of the most impressive things about PG has been these mailing
> lists. Informix support is OK, but the front-line support drones just
> don't have the same access to developers who really know what's going
> on that you can get directly on this list. Heck, PG developers have
> answered my questions here on the weekend! I don't know if you can
> even put a price on such direct access to high-level gurus.
Rdb has Informix beat there. Greybeard engineers are always on the
Rdb mailing list, and the support staff are long-timers who have
access to a continuously updated 20+year VAX NOTES database that
came along when Oracle purchased Rdb from DEC.
> I wish I had a better feature comparison list for you. I'm sure I've
> failed to mention a lot of great things about PG here, but like I
> said, my evaluation has been pretty informal. However at this time, I
> have concluded that we could move our company from Informix to PG
> without having to give up too much, other than the big licensing fees.
> We use a lot of open source software at our company and I would love
> to add PostgreSQL to the list.
We couldn't do it because our databases are too big for single-
threaded backups. The proprietary backup scheme is transactionaly
consistent and format lets us easily restore to systems with wildly
different disk layouts than the original database.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
%SYSTEM-F-FISH, my hovercraft is full of eels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHTgd3S9HxQb37XmcRAs5kAKCSuOLOguqhpf/DT0OxbA6ew33CWQCfaVf1
KBzM2RxA91WQEa7MM02SKZg=
=lvNg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
