 |
 |
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 10:29:10AM -0500, Rob Neary wrote: Also another option... We have several MSQL projects here, run on Linux with Apache, which work well. The main differnence between the two is the complexity and performance you get for *LARGE* databases. A good example of that is MySQL isn't a Relational Database engine (yet)... I should I have have mentioned this in my posting regarding Oracle... but we opted for PostgreSQL instead of Oracle because of the cost factor. I have developed both system and web applications using it and it really is an rdbms. I have likewise used both SQL Server 2000 and Oracle 8i/9i (we still use under the Academic license) and haven't ran into circumstances where either one would work better than PostgreSQL. Features we use in brief: - Cross platform support (Windows, Solaris, Linux) - Cursors - Foreign Key constraints - Replication - Stored Procedures (PGSQL, Perl, C) - Triggers - User defined datatypes - Views - Support for JDBC and SSL From my experience with each, PostgreSQL is faster than SQL Server 2000 or Oracle. Yes, this could easily be disproven using some metrics X and spending night/day tweaking each installation, but I don't have time for that, nor do we have millions of transactions per second or tables with millions of rows. PostgreSQL only weak point may be having a unified development platform, such as Oracle Application Server (not sure about MS product for this). Dennis Kelly Network Administrator College of Engineering Michigan State University > -----Original Message----- > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 2:08 AM > Subject: Re: Web-Database engine combinations and pricing > > Is there some specific project implementation which requires > the use of MS-SQL server or Oracle? More importantly, is the > additional cost per processor reflective of its increased > flexibility and power vs. something like MySQL or PostgreSQL? > Just watching the debate of over $900-$2000 per cpu licensee > is quite expensive. If someone has the technical skills to > develop the app, why not use something more cost effective?