Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th May 2006 15:41 UTC, submitted by Mark Brunelli
Databases Open source is hot these days, and Oracle knows it. The company is facing challenges from open source competitors by embracing open source technology in its own right - acquiring and developing key companies and products in this area - as well as fighting to show its merits over other open source choices. How does Oracle stack up against PostgreSQL? How do Oracle and Linux work together? What's next for Oracle on the open source front?
Thread beginning with comment 129270
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
McBofh
Member since:
2005-07-07

From my point of view, a flow-on (and very real) benefit of PostgreSQL and MySQL is that they're not being pushed by a company which wants to take over your complete computer (10g RAC) and storage (10g ASM).

On the other hand, if I was running a large corp (> 10000 employees) I'd want something that can scale and be highly available, possibly even parallel. For my money, that's where Oracle sits. Any requirement less than that and I'm gonna stick with PostgreSQL.

Reply Parent Score: 1

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

You're right about high-end enterprise wanting high-availability and concurrent access. However, this is less a feature of the database and more a feature of the operating system stack and application design. As far as I know, all high-availabitity clustering solutions are capable of running a wide variety of service payloads, including various database implementations. Concurrent access is more a function of how the application is programmed than which database is running.

In short, a highly-available clustering platform running Oracle is would be no more available than the same platform running a less expensive database. I guess the Oracle system might failover to peer nodes less frequently, at best.

Reply Parent Score: 1