On 6/6/07, Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You didn't read my message. I said that *BOTH* Oracle and Postgres performed well with table-per-customer.
Yes, I did. My belief is that Oracle can handle all customers in a single table.
The technical question is simple: Table-per-customer or big-table-for-everyone. The answer is, "it depends."
I agree, it does depend on the data, workload, etc. No one-size-fits-all answer there.
The reason I assert (and stand by this) that "They're blowing smoke" when they claim Oracle has the magic cure, is because Oracle and Postgres are both relational databases, they write their data to disks, and they both have indexes with O(log(N)) retrieval/update times. Oracle doesn't have a magical workaround to these facts, nor does Postgres.
Agreed that they are similar on the basics, but they do use significantly different algorithms and optimizations. Likewise, there is more tuning that can be done with Oracle given the amount of time and money one has to spend on it. Again, cost/benefit analysis on this type of an issue... but you're right, there is no "magic cure". -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
