Re: selecting DB on linux

[Jake Morrison <jake_morrison@example.com>]

--- Tim Hurman <kano-tlug@example.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Darren Cook wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> > Lots of postgres supporters here (including me). Aren't there any
> > Oracle advocates here to balance things? I've heard Oracle is 
> > the best choice once you database gets big enough to need 
> > more than one machine.
> Just buy a bigger machine, Sun 450/4500s make *really* nice DB
> machines :)
> 
> I used to do a lot with Oracle, then I tried MySQL and realised how
> Big,Slow,Cumbersome and generally a pain in the a*** it is.
> 
> In its favour, Oracle can configure just about everything, and they
> do have support contracts esp if you buy a universal solution
> (Sun+Cisco+Oracle). However you need to read a lot to get the best
> from Oracle.
> 
> did I also mention that is was expensive?

I agree. Oracle can do the job, no matter how big, 
but it will cost you both in money and management trouble. 

My projects have always been either MySQL or Oracle. It
sounds like PostgreSQL is a nice balance, though, and
I want to give it a try next time I get a chance.

MySQL is nice for lots of stuff connected with the web
where you need speed and correctness is not a big issue
(e.g. dynamic web pages, logging to a database). And it
is nice and cheap when you need something embedded. But
it has some nasty limitations that can bite you (e.g.,
you can't build an index on a column with nulls).

Oracle is good when you have real paying customers
with things like billing to worry about. And you have
a professional DBA to look after the thing. I really don't
like paying more to Oracle for user licenses than I am
getting for my own software, though :-P

> 
> Tim.
> 

Jake

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/