Re: Not to start a flame war but what does Oracle have that Postgresql does not?

Just 512MB of ram?!

Holy cow!

I've always heard that Oracle has several features and capabilities that
PostGres lacks (and it is infinitely more expensive, too), but I just worked
6 years ago and for a short period with Oracle so
I don't know how to fully answer your question.
But, I believe that Oracle can run a single query in multiple processors,
something that AFAIK PostGres is still unable to (Correct me if I'm wrong).

Best,
Oliveiros

----- Original Message -----
From: "LWATCDR" <lwatcdr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:58 PM
Subject: [NOVICE] Not to start a flame war but what does Oracle have that
Postgresql does not?

>I have used Postgres a bit and actually use it as the back end for a
> program we use at my office. Truth is that it has worked so well that
> I have not had to mess with it for years at a time and then only to
> move to a new server or update. I have no experience with Oracle at
> all. Since I work with small datasets of only a few hundred thousand
> records to a million records and only a handful of tables Postgres
> does everything we need here. Right now it is supporting 50 users and
> running on a P3 600 with a single hard drive and 512 MB of ram. Yes
> the response time is "human instant".
> So I am wondering what features does Postgres lack to equal Oracle or
> DB2? This is more for my own satisfaction since I can not imagine any
> uses here that wouldn't run on a modern hexcore server with a few
> gigabytes of ram and a raid of SATA drives.
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-novice mailing list (pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-novice