It really depends on the job at hand.
If this is for a super critical environment and the database is gonna get pounded really hard then go with Oracle if you have the budget otherwise PostgreSQL should do fine although Microsoft has nice development tools.
----- Original Message -----
From: Randolf Richardson <rr(at)8x(dot)ca>
Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2005 4:19 pm
Subject: [pgsql-benchmarks] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
> I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL
> vs. Oracle
> vs. Microsoft SQL Server. Recently someone has been trying to
> convince my
> client to switch from SyBASE to Microsoft SQL Server (they
> originally wanted
> to go with Oracle but have since fallen in love with Microsoft).
> All this
> time I've been recommending PostgreSQL for cost and stability (my
> own testing
> has shown it to be better at handling abnormal shutdowns and using
> system resources) in addition to true cross-platform compatibility.
> If I can show my client some statistics that PostgreSQL
> these (I'm more concerned about it beating Oracle because I know
> Microsoft's stuff is always slower, but I need the information
> anyway to
> protect my client from falling victim to a 'sales job'), then
> PostgreSQL will
> be the solution of choice as the client has always believed that
> they need a
> high-performance solution.
> I've already convinced them on the usual price, cross-platform
> compatibility, open source, long history, etc. points, and I've
> been assured
> that if the performance is the same or better than Oracle's and
> solutions that PostgreSQL is what they'll choose.
> Thanks in advance.
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)-----------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
pgsql-benchmarks by date
|Next:||From: Randolf Richardson||Date: 2005-01-09 03:16:33|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-01-08 21:58:03|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft |