Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Apparently the real competition is Sybase...

From: Douglas Trainor <trainor(at)uic(dot)edu>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Apparently the real competition is Sybase...
Date: 2003-08-22 02:18:34
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
I had Sybase on an SGI machine once.  A Sybase engineer told me that if
I thought using a raw disk was going to be faster (instead of going through
the usual filesystem overhead)  -- I would discover that it was slower.
This was around 1995.  I appreciated the honesty of the engineer. 
Of course, marketing would tell you raw disks were faster.


Robert Treat wrote:

>Taken from an article discussing recent additions to the osx platform
>"OS X ships with two open source database managers, MySQL and
>PostGresQL. However, for large-scale databases, these free options may
>not suffice. To fill that gap, Sybase has ported its enterprise-grade
>DBMS, ASE (Adaptive Server Enterprise), to OS X. ASE 12.5 delivers the
>full range of capabilities found in Unix and Windows editions of
>Sybase's server, including scaling, data protection, graphical
>management, and a rich SQL command set. "
>To be honest I can't recall ever using it, but I can't imagine sybase
>having better scaling, data protection, or better SQL command set than
>postgresql. Anyone have the insider knowledge on what makes sybase so
>good or can we chalk this one up to the "clueless pundit" factor?
>Robert Treat

In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: AutoresponderDate: 2003-08-22 02:35:31
Subject: Re: Wicked screensaver
Previous:From: AutoresponderDate: 2003-08-22 01:46:28
Subject: Re: Your application

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group