Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Minimalist ORACLE Installation
Sarah Tanembaum wrote:
>
> "Hans Forbrich" <forbrich_at_yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:51yrc.6185$SQ2.1489_at_edtnps89...
>> Sarah Tanembaum wrote: >> >> > >> > Some of my colleaque to look into the opensource database such as MySQL >> > and/or PostgreSQL since they are easy to install and require virtually >> > very little resources as compare to MS SQL*Server, Sybase, DB2, and >> > especially Oracle. Is it true? >> > >> > The reason is that I have a limited diskspace and memory. >> > >> > Thanks >> >> The smallest 'supported' footprint for Oracle that meets your criteria is >> Oracle Standard Edition (or Standard Edition ONE if your machine only >> supports 1 or 2 CPU). >> >> You can theoretically create a custom install smaller than that, but you >> have to know exactly what you are doing. (And it probably won't be >> supported.) >> >> The Standard Edition {ONE] has most, if not all, of the features that >> typical PostgreSQL, MySQL, MS Access and SQL Server shops are looking >> for. (This is NOT a challenge for a feature battle - just a stanement of >> what the developers think they want, in my experience.)
Wrong. Many small and some medium companies can.
Howeer, you ignore the capabilities and purpose of the Enterprise Edition and the relevance thereof to large companies.
> Just as computer hardware, most user buy the most expensive one to get the
> most features but they are using it just for wordprocessing, reading
> email, and
> play games. Many, if not, most medium-big size corporation wasting their
> resources for something that they do not actually needs it.
>
>> >> There are dozens of reasons why MySQL and PostgreSQL have a smaller >> footprint. As of yet, the commercial products still have an edge in >> reliability, scalability, and other capabilities.
All I can say - ignorance is bliss.
You, unfortunately, do not know what you are talking about when making such a statement. However, unless you read the Oracle Concepts manual, your belief will likely stay unchanged.
Therefore, if you want to continue this discussion with me, I recommend you read the indicated document.
>> >> Oracle, for example, provides intrinsic support for several additional >> datatypes AND their manipulation. While PostgreSQL and MySQL support >> many >> of the datatypes, the manipulation is in some areas still a ways off. As
>> result, you end up growing the effective footprint by needing to add >> extra software.
But YOU must spend the time making sure it works.
I would rather use Apache supplied by Oracle, knowing that it works with Oracle. Others (read the archives) prefer to waste their time making their specific version work with the database.
>> >> The kicker is that the additional things are preintegrated and tested >> with the database, whereas many OpenSource developers end up adding or >> integrating the capability manually. Some examnples, in Oracle's case: >> Apache-based HTTP listener, PERL, direct interface from Apache to >> database via mod_PLSQL, Java and J2EE, a command line interface to the >> data,
>> & message queueing, email inteface, direct HTML capability, workflow, a >> text/document index and search mechanism, geospatial manipulation, XML as
>> data type that can be joined with tables.
No argument. It depends on what you want to accomplish. As I said, know your tools.
>> >> (Similar statements can be made for the other products.) >> >> The counter argument is generally "I want to pick the version levels of
>> add-ons". Which is fine if you want to spend the time and effort >> supporting the required combination. >> >> (One other _major_ difference is that Oracle uses a SCHEMA in a manner >> similar to other products' DATABASE. Many developers get this confused
>> create many Oracle Databases when they really should have one database
>> contains many schemas. That frequently results in a footprint that is
>> larger than necessary.) >> >> Don't get me wrong - I do like and use Open Source. I just believe in >> picking the right tool for the job, and understand WHY it's the right
>> Many developers snub Oracle simply because they do not know what it is >> capable of doing. Thus they end up reinventing the wheel - which may >> keep the initial cost low but tends to increase the long term operating >> cost.
As I said, I believe in Open Source. However, I do know that used incorrectly, it does increase the cost. And I also know that using Oracle, not as a plain data source, but as an application environment, generally results in a reduced cost over any other combination of
You MUST understand what you are doing and what you are using. Otherwise you are simply another religious fanatic in a world filled with too many fanatics.
(However, I see that your intention is probably to troll this group, so further discussion is useless. Goodbye.)
/Hans Received on Sat May 22 2004 - 14:27:44 CDT
![]() |
![]() |