Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 15th Mar 2006 16:35 UTC
Databases "Within the past two years, Oracle, IBM and Microsoft have all released freely available versions of their flagship database servers, a move that would have been unheard of just a few years ago. While their respective representatives would argue the move was made in order to better accommodate the needs of all users, it's fairly clear that continued pressure from open source alternatives such as MySQL and PostgreSQL have caused these database juggernauts to rethink their strategies within this increasingly competitive market."
Thread beginning with comment 104750
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
in the real world
by Guido Draheim on Wed 15th Mar 2006 19:55 UTC
Guido Draheim
Member since:

Last year I was asking a big company specialising in ERP systems why they are not supporting Postgres. They said to have met problems. I wanted an example and he quoted that order-by clause had severe limits (real world databases use wide materializations in the range of 100+ columns. Have a look into a datawarehouse book to know why). Some Oracle fan raised suspicions about scalebility due to missing streams and asynchronous transaction support. (Only Sql Server is worse for being quick in escalating cursors to a table lock). In the real world things are not quite as fair as for running postgres on a webserver with a few dozen tables per application. The "5 myths dispelled" in the article have not been gotten wrong by anyone ever since Postgres-7. The author of that article should be blamed for requoting these things as it might make for the impression that some "people in the industry" are pondering with those. They are not.

Reply Score: 2