Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle

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.

The reality is, very few companies are willing to bet their a..erm,
donkey ;) on PostgreSQL... yet. 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...
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)