Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 02:50:25PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 10:55:33PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > David,
> >
> > > Then they should have mentioned it. PostgreSQL has real issues,
> > > and if they'd mentioned any one of these, it would have been
> > > reasonable. Instead, these guys chose to spread the FUD around
> > > and call PostgreSQL a toy.
> >
> > That's not how I read the article. They recommended PostgreSQL
> > for "edge" applications, which is the conventional opinion on Open
> > Source databases. From my perspective, it's a positive article
> > for us: "Try PostgreSQL, you might like it."
>
> Not only that, but I think the very last answer really hit the nail
> on the head when it comes to MySQL and PostgreSQL: there's no need
> to take MySQL's trade-offs for even your light-weight applications.

True.

> The reality is, very few companies are willing to bet their a..erm,
> donkey ;) on PostgreSQL... yet.

I think this was true two years ago, but just about anybody here can
name a whole bunch of outfits (and probably is not allowed to name
others) that bet the farm on PostgreSQL. :)

> Remember that most of the people at a level that can make that
> decision have probably barely even heard about PostgreSQL, so it's
> no surprise they're not ready to bet the farm on it. Given time and
> sucessful deployments in less-critical areas, this will change.
> Especially if the big 3 keep their pricing where it is...

They may or may not. FOSS databases have cut into their markets in a
big way, and we can expect that none of those outfits are going to
take it lying down. We've already seen "introductory" pricing, FUD
campaigns, etc., and we will doubtless see a lot more as time goes on.

Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!