Database holy war

[Brian Cluff]

I would agree, porting large database programs from one database to the
other can be a big pain.  Every database that I have seen has their own
extenstions to the sql standard.  Oracle probably being the worst offender
of the bunch.... probably why the oracle customers tend to be so loyal...
they don't have the choice after a while :)

If you want to think about something painfull, try playing thinking of what
it would take to make your software run on 2 or 3 databases.

Brian
----- Original Message -----

> Just a thought from the developer side of things.
>
> I am porting our product which runs on Solaris to linux. It is a personal
> project, not a company project. We use Informix, so when I started porting
> I thought I would see what it would take to use another database.
>
> My first thought was Postgres. After installing it and playing with it
> for awhile, I discovered that Postgres does not support the PREPARE
> statement. That would have meant not just porting, but serious re-write
> of alot of the code -- Postgres was out of the picture.
>
> Next my friend recommended InterBase (IB). Rather than do another install
I
> decided to do my research up front. The result was that IB does not
support
> a SERIAL data type, instead you have to call a IB function. The end result
> would again have required a re-write -- not my goal.
>
> So I ended up getting Informix from our DBA's.
>
> My point is don't just look at the DB, look at the impact to your code
> as well.
>
> John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trent Shipley [mailto:tshipley@symbio-tech.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:20 PM
> To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> Subject: Database holy war
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> > [mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us]On Behalf Of Derek
> > Neighbors
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2:38 PM
> > To: PLUG
> > Cc: Adam Whitlatch
> > Subject: RE: [azipa] Database Suggestion?
> >
> >
> > > What really worries me is that your Access 97 database must be about
to
> > > break.  The four major players in the database market are:
> > >
> > > Oracle,
> > > Microsoft SQL Server,
> > > IBM DB2,
> > > Sybase,
> > > and Informix
> > >
> > > Price will prevent any but the largest or well endowed NPOs
> > from using ANY
> > > of these real databases.
> > >
> > > PostgreSQL falls somewhere in-between the big five and Access.
> > Also, you
> > > can just barely run it on Windows.  However, it is free and works
pretty
> > > well.
> >
> > I am not sure how one can say PostgreSQL falls some where between Access
> > and the big boys.  MySQL fits that bill, but not PostgreSQL.
> >
> > At this point probably only DB2 and Oracle are clearly above PostGRES.
I
> > do not evaluate MSSQL as a choice as it is the only one that runs on a
> > SINGLE platform.  A platform that doesnt scale very well so by default
it
> > has to be left out of such a discussion IMHO.
> >
> > Derek
> > derek@gnu.org
>
>
> 1) I congratulate you on your impressive e-mail address.
>
> 2) PostgreSQL is still not a full-function RDBMS.
>
> 2.1) It does NOT provide no-downtime operation.  This is primarily because
> the Vacuum function takes a table offline.  Current versions of Oracle,
DB2,
> and SQL Server all make provision for non-stop operation.   (Of course,
you
> can emulate Non-Stop operation by using two tables in Postgres or you can
> wait a few months until Vacuum can work on-line . . .)
>
> 2.2)  PostgreSQL claims that it has unlimited ability to scale.  However,
> the maximum size claimed by Postgres.org is a _tiny_ 60 Gbytes.  As far as
I
> am concerned that means that Postgres scales to LESS than 60 Gbytes,
period,
> full stop.
> Postgres' ability to operate in clustered, distributed, or
> replicated
> environments is still in the wish-list stage.
>
> 2.3)  Postgres lacks a full suite of idiot friendly GUIs.  Postgres Access
> is a poor cousin of what the big commercial databases supply.
>
> 2.4) Compared to the commercial offerings, Postgres is sparsely
documented.
>
> 3) If SQL Server may run on only one platform, but on that platform it
runs
> very well.  Second, that platform is the most popular in the world, and
> Postgres b-a-r-e-l-y runs on it.  Also, the labor costs to run the *nixes
> that can host Postgres are MUCH higher than for that other OS.
> More important, when NT4 was Microsoft's premier OS it was very easy
> to
> argue that *nix, and the Free *nix OSes in particular, were viable
> alternatives.  When I advocate using *nix instead of NT-5 people just
laugh
> at me.  NT-5 and SQL Server 7/8 are HUGE improvements over their
> predecessors.  They are probably SO much easier to use, that they make it
> CHEAPER to use Microsoft products than to run freeware.
>
> I mean, besides academia, academics, and NPOs who A) have obscenely cheap
> labor costs and B) may actually want to hack the base code, who can afford
> freeware.
>
> That bears repeating:
>
> Who can afford freeware??!!
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
post
> to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss