Andrew,
Your absolutely right. During the DOTCOM fiasco commercial database licenses
were based on the number of processors & the speed of those processors. Oracle's
PowerUnit pricing was one of those stupid attempts. A power unit was defined as 1 CPU
running at 1 MHZ. Mind you a po
At 12:04 PM 4/2/2004, Gregory S. Williamson wrote:
>Informix fees vary but figure about $33,000 per CPU for a web environment
>(other licenses are cheaper, for instance, a server with only a handful of
>connections). On the plus side for Informix, the Oracle stuff we had
>consists of dozens of
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm fairly sure that Oracle's pricing scales with the iron you plan to
use: the more or faster CPUs you want to run it on, the more you pay.
A large shop can easily get into the $100K license range, but Oracle
figures that they will have spent way more than that on their hardware.
T
Informix fees vary but figure about $33,000 per CPU for a web environment (other
licenses are cheaper, for instance, a server with only a handful of connections). On
the plus side for Informix, the Oracle stuff we had consists of dozens of tapes and
CDs ... Informix was rarely more a CD and muc
And speaking of Rolls Royce's, there is a commercial product called Terradata that is
extremely good at handling PB's of data. Of course the bottom of the barrel entry
price is $400,000US, not including the proprietary hardware & OS you need.
Dick Goulet
Senior Oracle DBA
Oracle Certified 8i DB
Tom,
I believe PG's biggest problem is that many third party vendors of any
significant size (read that as PeopleSoft, SAP, etc.) don't support PG and PG as
an entity does not have a owner like Oracle, DB2, Sql*Server. There are other
problems with PG as well that I'll admit are no
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 10:42:28AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm fairly sure that Oracle's pricing scales with the iron you plan to
> use: the more or faster CPUs you want to run it on, the more you pay.
> A large shop can easily get into the $100K license range, but Oracle
> figures that they will
At 03:36 AM 4/2/2004, Bradley Kieser wrote:
>Hi Tony,
>Yep, for the time being you're pretty much limited to this for a table. As
>far as commercial DBs go, IMHO (without knowing about DB2) Oracle is the
>only player in town that will realistically deal with table sizes in the
>order of 100sGB o
Well I for one find it very difficult to choose a DB other than PG and
do so only under duress. It is really only client demand that drives the
decision away from PG but like you, I am finding that more and more, PG
is winning the deal and winning the day. Once the replication and
ability to pl
For quite some time. I believe the max table size of 32 TB was in effect
as far back as 6.5 or so. It's not some new thing. Now, the 8k row
barrier was broken with 7.1. I personally found the 8k row size barrier
to be a bigger problem back then. And 7.1 broke that in 2001, almost
exactly f
> I'm fairly sure that Oracle's pricing scales with the iron you plan to
> use: the more or faster CPUs you want to run it on, the more you pay.
> A large shop can easily get into the $100K license range, but Oracle
> figures that they will have spent way more than that on their hardware.
Exactly
Bradley Kieser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, it isn't. Oracle is expensive but it is also the Rolls Royce, it
> seems. I am a strictly OpenSource man so I don't really get into the
> pricing thing, but I do know that it is also deal-by-deal and depending
> on who and what you are, the prices
No, it isn't. Oracle is expensive but it is also the Rolls Royce, it
seems. I am a strictly OpenSource man so I don't really get into the
pricing thing, but I do know that it is also deal-by-deal and depending
on who and what you are, the prices can vary. E.g. Educational
facilities have massiv
> Oracle's main drawbacks are:
> a) VERY resource-intensive with a high process startup overhead.
> b) VERY expensive. You are talking license fees into the £100 000s for
> big iron installations.
>
Wow! 100,000 pounds for software. Now that is expensive! Is that a ballpark
price for most of t
Andrew Biagioni wrote:
Can anyone recommend an editor (windows OR linux) for writing plpgsql
code, that might be friendlier than a standard text editor?
Nice features I can think of might be:
- smart tabbing (1 tab = N spaces)
- code coloring (esp. quoted strings!)
- parens/brackets matching
vim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Biagioni wrote:
| Can anyone recommend an editor (windows OR linux) for writing plpgsql
| code, that might be friendlier than a standard text editor?
|
| Nice features I can think of might be:
| - smart tabbing (1 tab = N spaces)
| - code colorin
Ingres 6.4 is pretty much history and i'm not even sure if it's
supported by CA any more. Better use 2.5 or 2.6 ! It's offered
for Linux as well.
Regarding performance problems, there are a lot of parameters
to tune an Ingres database. The standard installation out of
the box is never sufficient
Ah! It's been updated then! Coolio! You just can't beat OpenSource!
;-)
Thx for the update!
Brad
Tony and Bryn Reina wrote:
let alone the storate limit of 2GB per
table. So sadly, PG would have to bow out of this IMHO unless someone
else nukes me on this!
I just checked the PostgreSQL web
Hi Tony,
Yep, for the time being you're pretty much limited to this for a table.
As far as commercial DBs go, IMHO (without knowing about DB2) Oracle is
the only player in town that will realistically deal with table sizes in
the order of 100sGB or more. Ingres has limitations similar to PG
alt
19 matches
Mail list logo
