Re: Oracle 10g Express - any danger for Postgres?

On 11/1/2005 8:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>> On 10/31/2005 1:14 PM, Chris Browne wrote:
>>> The fact that it appears "a joke" to people wanting to deploy big
>>> databases doesn't prevent it from taking a painful bite out of, oh,
>>> say, certain vendors that forgot to own their own transactional
>>> storage engine...
>
>> It's not a joke. It fits exactly the "small web application" needs. Who
>> will want to pay for a commercial MySQL license when they can run Oracle
>> for free?
>
> People who can't figure out how to configure Postgres are not likely to
> get far with Oracle ;-). Unless Oracle has made some *huge* strides in
> ease of installation/administration with 10g, I see this making
> practically no dent in MySQL. Or PG for that matter. All they're
> really likely to accomplish is to cannibalize some of their own low-end
> sales.

With those limitations, there isn't much left to "configure". We are
talking about a 4GB maximum DB size. That is one default tablespace with
appropriate default extent sizes and pctinc. All the user needs to chose
is one of 3 canned config files for using 256, 512 or 1024 MB of RAM.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #