Go to the FreeLists Home Page Home Signup Help Login
 



Browse oracle-l: This Month's ArchiveMain Archive PageRelated postsPrevious by DateNext by Date

Re: EnterpriseDB as an Oracle replacement

  • From: "Jeremy Schneider" <jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: ben.poels@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 23:21:48 -0400
Kevin Closson wrote a few articles about this.  Maybe you've already read
them, but just in case...

http://kevinclosson.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/nearly-free-or-not-gridsql-for-enterprisedb-is-simply-better-than-real-application-clusters-it-is-shared-nothing-architecture-after-all/


On 9/5/07, Ben Poels <ben.poels@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I know many people have mentioned in the past that they find Postgres a
> viable alternative to Oracle for many uses. Now there is EnterpriseDb
> which
> is based on Postgres but takes it one step further and claims it is Oracle
> compatible. It even has range partitioning w/o the extra $$$. They are
> touting FTD, Vonage and Sony's gaming division as major users.
>
> Is anyone using EnterpriseDB for there non-critical databases to save
> money
> on licensing? If you are, how accurate are the compatibility claims? I
> know
> it doesn't support XMLTYPE and private synonyms for instance. Anyone done
> any benchmarks?
>
> Ben
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>


-- 
Jeremy Schneider
Chicago, IL
http://www.ardentperf.com/category/technical

Other related posts:

  • EnterpriseDB as an Oracle replacement
  • Re: EnterpriseDB as an Oracle replacement
  • Re: EnterpriseDB as an Oracle replacement
  • RE: EnterpriseDB as an Oracle replacement




  • [ Home | Signup | Help | Login | Archives | Lists ]

    All trademarks and copyrights within the FreeLists archives are owned by their respective owners.
    Everything else ©2008 Avenir Technologies, LLC.