Re: Questions about Postgres and Oracle
From: Paresh Yadav <yparesh_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 00:57:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPXEL0LQGN-ZoR_fAhtpenHmZnLNrRS9hJX0Qv7quw3uQ+BYTw_at_mail.gmail.com>
In addition to excellent points mentioned by many posters above: Recently one of my client decided to move to PostgreSQL after getting frustrated with Oracle`s licensing costs and ..... The migration is in progress so we will know the results in few months. We had done some back-off tests for PostgreSQL against Oracle and what I had come to the conclusion is that for a 2 TB ODS database that will grow by about 700 GB per year up to total of 5 TB PostgreSQL won't satisfy the performance and manageability requirements. We decided to relax the database storage / size requirements by storing only 30 or 90 days partial data as needed by various application specific databases instead of a unified single massive Oracle database. We also relaxed some of the availability and reliability requirements because we think PostgreSQL can't meet them without complex architecture involving clustering etc, would like to know your feedback about our decision above.
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 00:57:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPXEL0LQGN-ZoR_fAhtpenHmZnLNrRS9hJX0Qv7quw3uQ+BYTw_at_mail.gmail.com>
In addition to excellent points mentioned by many posters above: Recently one of my client decided to move to PostgreSQL after getting frustrated with Oracle`s licensing costs and ..... The migration is in progress so we will know the results in few months. We had done some back-off tests for PostgreSQL against Oracle and what I had come to the conclusion is that for a 2 TB ODS database that will grow by about 700 GB per year up to total of 5 TB PostgreSQL won't satisfy the performance and manageability requirements. We decided to relax the database storage / size requirements by storing only 30 or 90 days partial data as needed by various application specific databases instead of a unified single massive Oracle database. We also relaxed some of the availability and reliability requirements because we think PostgreSQL can't meet them without complex architecture involving clustering etc, would like to know your feedback about our decision above.
- PostgreSQL documentation recommends maximum of about 100 partition per table per instance. Beyond which you are expected to use clustering.
- No partition wise join etc.
- As someone mentioned limited support for partition which my manager put nicely as `PostgreSQL lets you manage your own partitions!`. This is similar to how it was done in Oracle 7.3, circa 1997.
- Extremely primitive Query optimizer
- If you are spoiled by AWR, OEM, Hints, SQL Profiles, intelligent optimizer in Oracle, you will find PostgreSQL lacking many of those features
IMHO PostgreSQL will be excellent replacement for Oracle for small low volume / load databases. I wish to see something rise and challenge Oracle so as to have a healthy competition in the market.
Cheers,
Paresh
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Jared Still <jkstill_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Sandra Becker <sbecker6925_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > "Oracle DBs are an outdated, monolithic way to handle data
> > and not at all scalable".
> >
> >
> That is pure FUD.
>
>
> Jared Still
> Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
> Oracle Blog: http://jkstill.blogspot.com
> Home Page: http://jaredstill.com
>
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
-- Thanks Paresh 416-688-1003 -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Fri Dec 07 2012 - 06:57:36 CET